docs(hardware): record TTSKY26b withdrawal in silicon_anchor §3 - #52
Open
dmitrii-f-t27 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
docs(hardware): record TTSKY26b withdrawal in silicon_anchor §3#52dmitrii-f-t27 wants to merge 1 commit into
dmitrii-f-t27 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
The TTSKY26b shuttle order was submitted 2026-05-17, then cancelled and refunded; no Trinity die exists and none is scheduled. README.md:39 and :180 already say so, but silicon_anchor.md §3 — the file both README lines cite as evidence — still presented the shuttle as live. docs/hardware/silicon_anchor.md:144-146 — Three Crowns status table changed from "Submitted" to "Submitted 2026-05-17 — WITHDRAWN"; added an IMPORTANT note that the order was cancelled and refunded, no die exists, no silicon route selected. Wording reused from README.md:39 and :180; recorded in trinity-papers-ru PR gHashTag#18 (merged 2026-07-31). docs/hardware/silicon_anchor.md:151-156 — §3.3 retitled "Post-Silicon Validation Plan (not executable — no silicon route)"; removed the "expected ~Nov 2026" chip-return date and stated the plan cannot be run. docs/hardware/silicon_anchor.md:177-181 — §3.4 no longer asserts the README TTSKY26b claim is "correct" as a live submission; it now states the withdrawal and that WITHDRAWN is the correct status. docs/hardware/README.md:28 — the "FPGA 323 MHz, 35/35 RTL tests" row cited gf16_benchmarks.json, which does not exist anywhere in the repo (verified with find). Marked EVIDENCE MISSING and noted that the file that does exist, gf16_bench_results.json, is a software (Zig) benchmark holding MSE and ns/op latency only — no FPGA frequency, no RTL test count. Not substituted as if it were hardware evidence. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
dmitrii-f-t27
force-pushed
the
fix/silicon-status
branch
from
August 11, 2026 11:49
e19a835 to
b79e276
Compare
Author
|
@gHashTag — this is one of six PRs from a documentation and CI audit across the Trinity repos. Requesting your review here; I do not have permission to add you as a reviewer on this repo, hence the mention. The full set:
Each PR body states what it does not fix as well as what it does. They are independent — merge or reject them separately. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
README.md:180and:304both citedocs/hardware/silicon_anchor.md§3.2 as their evidence for WITHDRAWN. A reviewer following that citation lands on the opposite claim: a grep for withdraw/refund/cancel insilicon_anchor.mdreturns zero matches, §3.2 marks all three crowns Submitted, §3.3 plans validation when chips return (expected ~Nov 2026), and §3.4 asserts the README's TTSKY26b claim is correct.§3 now records the withdrawal: submitted 2026-05-17, cancelled and refunded, no die exists, no silicon route selected. §3.3 is retitled as a plan that cannot be executed and the date is removed. §3.4 is corrected. The wording follows
README.md:39and:180, which are already right, so the repo says one thing.Separately,
docs/hardware/README.md:28citesgf16_benchmarks.jsonas evidence for averifiedrow. That file does not exist anywhere in the repo. The row now says so, and names what does exist —gf16_bench_results.json, a software benchmark (MSE, ns/op) with no FPGA frequency and no RTL test count.I did not quietly substitute it: it is not hardware evidence and should not read as if it were. If a real hardware artefact exists elsewhere, point the row at that instead.