Skip to content

docs(hardware): record TTSKY26b withdrawal in silicon_anchor §3 - #52

Open
dmitrii-f-t27 wants to merge 1 commit into
gHashTag:mainfrom
dmitrii-f-t27:fix/silicon-status
Open

docs(hardware): record TTSKY26b withdrawal in silicon_anchor §3#52
dmitrii-f-t27 wants to merge 1 commit into
gHashTag:mainfrom
dmitrii-f-t27:fix/silicon-status

Conversation

@dmitrii-f-t27

Copy link
Copy Markdown

README.md:180 and :304 both cite docs/hardware/silicon_anchor.md §3.2 as their evidence for WITHDRAWN.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 in silicon_anchor.md returns 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:39 and :180, which are already right, so the repo says one thing.

Separately, docs/hardware/README.md:28 cites gf16_benchmarks.json as evidence for a verified row. 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.

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  from "Submitted" to "Submitted 2026-05-17 — WITHDRAWN"; added an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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant