TudorandClaude Opus 5
cd1c5d1e1a
PR Checks / Frontend Typecheck + Tests (pull_request) Successful in 1m15s
PR Checks / Backend Smoke (pull_request) Successful in 9s
PR Checks / Build Backend (no push) (pull_request) Successful in 19s
PR Checks / Build Frontend (no push) (pull_request) Successful in 1m18s
PR Checks / Build Pipeline (no push) (pull_request) Successful in 11s
PR Checks / AI Code Review (Claude) (pull_request) Successful in 57s
The spec described the tier system as the design of record. It is gone, so the document was describing something the code deliberately does not do. The revision note and the "why not, having built it the other way first" passage are kept rather than overwritten. The mistake is the instructive part: treating a preference as a constraint inverted the ranking, and the stopping rule added to prevent weak distant matches is what guaranteed six Catholic schools and no community school down the road. A spec that quietly presents the second design as the plan teaches nobody why the first one failed. The mockup link is annotated as one revision behind rather than silently left to look current. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>