65 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
65 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
# Issue #16 Verification
|
|
|
|
## Status: ✅ ALREADY IMPLEMENTED ON MAIN
|
|
|
|
Issue #16 asked for the Paperclips-style dismantle endgame: The Unbuilding.
|
|
That implementation is already present on `main` in a fresh clone of `the-beacon`.
|
|
|
|
## Mainline evidence
|
|
|
|
Repo artifacts already present on `main`:
|
|
- `js/dismantle.js`
|
|
- `tests/dismantle.test.cjs`
|
|
- supporting integration points in `js/engine.js`, `js/render.js`, and `js/data.js`
|
|
|
|
What the current implementation already covers:
|
|
- an explicit Unbuilding offer path (`Dismantle.offerChoice()` / `renderChoice()`)
|
|
- staged panel removal over time
|
|
- stage-five resource-card dissolution sequence
|
|
- final beacon-only moment with the line: `That is enough.`
|
|
- save/load persistence for active dismantle progress
|
|
- defer / cooldown handling so the sequence can be postponed and later resumed
|
|
- render-loop protection so alignment UI does not wipe the Unbuilding prompt
|
|
|
|
## Verification run from fresh clone
|
|
|
|
Commands executed:
|
|
- `node --test tests/dismantle.test.cjs`
|
|
|
|
Observed result:
|
|
- the full dismantle regression suite passes on fresh `main`
|
|
- verified behaviors include:
|
|
- offering The Unbuilding instead of ending immediately
|
|
- preserving the prompt across `renderAlignment()`
|
|
- suppressing pending drift UI during active dismantle
|
|
- completing the stage-five resource dissolve sequence
|
|
- save/load restoration of partial progress
|
|
- defer cooldown persistence across reload
|
|
|
|
## Historical trail
|
|
|
|
The issue accumulated many closed unmerged attempts while the implementation was hardened across repeated passes.
|
|
Representative prior PR trail:
|
|
- PR #116
|
|
- PR #118
|
|
- PR #120
|
|
- PR #121
|
|
- PR #123
|
|
- PR #124
|
|
- PR #135
|
|
- PR #138
|
|
- PR #139
|
|
- PR #145
|
|
|
|
Those PRs show the long hardening history, but the important truth today is simpler: the dismantle sequence is already implemented on `main` and the tests pass.
|
|
|
|
## Why this should close the issue
|
|
|
|
Issue #16 is an atomic implementation issue, not a broad parent epic.
|
|
The requested feature exists on `main`, passes targeted verification, and does not need to be re-implemented again.
|
|
|
|
## Recommendation
|
|
|
|
Close issue #16 as already implemented on `main`.
|
|
This verification PR exists only to preserve a clean evidence trail and stop further duplicate implementation attempts.
|