docs(ssdl): rename SSDL shape symbols to concise form (o->, o=>)

Final vocabulary:
- ===>        -> ->        (codepath)
- ===>W===>  -> =>        (wide codepath)
- o==>       -> o->       (codecycle)
- oo==>oo    -> o=>       (wide codecycle)
- ===>B===>  -> ->B->     (codepath with branch)
- ===>M===>  -> ->M->     (codepath with merge)

Composites ===>B===> and ===>M===> preserved as ->B->/->M-> so the
branch/merge markers stay visible (vs. dropping them entirely).

Scope: 3 reports files (computational_shapes_ssdl_digest,
proposed_new_tracks, session_synthesis), 4 intent_dsl_survey files
(plan, report, report_v1.1, report_v1.2), 3 nagent_review files
(state.toml description, v2_2, v2_3). All old symbols verified gone
via grep; all new symbols verified present at expected locations.
This commit is contained in:
ed
2026-06-12 12:52:20 -04:00
parent dff97b15c3
commit c4085319ff
10 changed files with 740 additions and 738 deletions
+1 -1
View File
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ Each got ~4 surgical spec edits + See Also cross-references. No plan/task change
### The 5 open questions the report surfaces
1. **Vocabulary preference** — the §2 vocabulary (`[I]`, `===>`, `o==>`, etc.) is a proposal. Alternatives: box-drawing characters (`┌─┐│└─┘`) for more ASCII-art look; Markdown tables for tabular content; hybrid (ASCII boxes for layout, tables for tabular data).
1. **Vocabulary preference** — the §2 vocabulary (`[I]`, `->`, `o->`, etc.) is a proposal. Alternatives: box-drawing characters (`┌─┐│└─┘`) for more ASCII-art look; Markdown tables for tabular content; hybrid (ASCII boxes for layout, tables for tabular data).
2. **Comparison policy** — after locking a design, do we always verify with `MiniMax understand_image` (slow but accurate)? Only when the design uses color/custom drawing? Only when the implementing Tier-3 reports a mismatch?