The app carries three scores and meant two things by a green dot.
Readiness and the sleep score both call 70 green; the health score alone
wanted 75. One app cannot do that, so the outlier moved. The yellow floor
stays at 50: raising the bar for a reward and lowering the bar for a
warning are different decisions, and only the first one was on the table.
The band is still not a function of the number. The composite takes the
worse of the mean's band and the worst counted pillar's, so a composite
carrying a red pillar stays red however high the mean sits - the stored
band on a recorded day exists for exactly that reason. Only the mean-side
thresholds moved.
The method version moves with it. A day already recorded keeps the band
it was actually shown under, and the notice key carries the version, so
each account is told once that the rules moved. The week-over-week
comparison is left alone on purpose: the number itself does not change,
only the colour it is drawn in, so a subtraction across the change still
compares two numbers worked out the same way.
It could never score. The schema records VO2max but cannot tell a
measured test apart from a device estimate, so every fitness row reached
the scorer unproven and was refused - the pillar has never produced a
value on any account. Listing it on the score settings page as a thing
you can choose, with a line admitting it does nothing, was chrome over a
switch that changed no number.
So it leaves the catalogue: no pillar id, no domain, no scorer, no row,
no wire field. A stored selection that still names it reads back fine -
the resolver has always filtered stored ids against the catalogue and
drops what it no longer knows, so nobody's saved recipe throws or is
discarded over it.
That also fixes the page claiming unsaved changes forever. The save
stripped the fitness pillar out of the selection on its way to the
server, so the answer that came back could never match the form that
sent it, and 'All pillars' left the save button lit no matter how often
you pressed it.
The flag was proven end to end over the real snapshot, digest and derived
wires, which is the right place to show that it arrives and the wrong place
to be the only proof of what it means. That suite needs a container runtime,
so on a machine without one the definition stood unguarded: replacing the
default side of the comparison with the unnarrowed catalogue, the exact
mistake the docblock warns about, left the whole unit suite green.
The definition now has its own fast test, and that break takes two of its
cases red.
One boolean on the composite: true when the account's resolved
composition differs from the composition its defaults would resolve to
today, both narrowed by the same modules. Decided once in the score
reader, from the same config and module map the composition came from,
so no client interprets a config blob to answer it.
This is not hasSelection. An account that opened the surface and kept
every pillar has written a selection and is not configured; an account
whose modules alone narrow the set has authored nothing and is not
configured either.
The promise is that nobody's number moves the day they upgrade, and the
way it holds is easy to lose: there is no backfill and no migration
step, because a null column reads as version zero, version zero counts
every pillar, and every pillar narrowed to what the account's modules
record is exactly the set the module switches were producing before.
The inheritance is the resolver's behaviour, so the next person to touch
the resolver needs to know they are holding it.
Also records what the first save sets in motion, once each: the delta
suppressed while the comparison window still straddles the change, the
next stored day marked as a break so the line is drawn in two segments,
and the notice raised under a key carrying the recipe version.
The recipe boundary opened with an early return for a missing date and
another for a date it could not read. Deleting either one changed no
answer any test or any caller could observe: both cases parse to NaN,
and every comparison against NaN is already false, so the refusal was
falling out of the arithmetic underneath them. An if that cannot change
an outcome is a comment wearing a keyword, and it invites the next
reader to trust a lock that is not attached to anything.
The behaviour is unchanged and now has one statement instead of three,
with the reason written where the next person will look for it.
The seam had the same shape in miniature: a day naming no recipe was
already broken away from a day that named one, by plain inequality, so
the arm only ever mattered when two consecutive days both named none.
That case is now covered, and removing the arm makes it fail.
The recipe boundary also required a version of at least one before it
would suppress. That reads like a second lock and is not one: the
resolver returns a version below one only on the same path that returns
no change date, so nothing could ever reach the condition and no test
could make it fail. Removing it leaves the guard asking the one question
that has an honest answer, which is whether the recipe moved inside the
window.
The invariant that makes the removal safe is now pinned instead: a
resolved configuration never carries a version without the date beside
it. A resolver path that produced one would wave that account's recipe
change straight past the guard.
Also pins the order of the two rules that can fire together. A change
that moved the composition trips both, and the person is told they
changed what counts rather than that the included pillars changed, which
would describe the consequence and leave out the act.
The named failure now has a test that drives the whole chain a request
takes: fixture rows through the real reader, the real score record
write, the real dashboard snapshot, the real verdict rung, and the real
digest that gives the morning push its sentence. Only the IO around that
chain is faked. A version built on a hand-written snapshot literal would
have stayed green through a release where the assembly between the two
ends dropped the field, which has happened here before.
Every case runs twice on the same data. Once with the recipe changed
three days ago, once with it changed a month ago. The second run is what
proves the fixture really does produce an eleven-point fall, so the first
run's silence is the guard working rather than an account with nothing
to say. The decline is gradual on purpose: a cliff would raise each
pillar's own noise floor and the delta would be suppressed for a reason
that has nothing to do with the recipe.
Beside it, the boundary's edges, the notice key's two dimensions and the
seam's shape, each with a case proving the guard stays quiet on innocent
data. Against real Postgres, a row now has to come back carrying the
recipe version and change date the account's stored configuration
supplied.
Changing which pillars count is an act the person performed, not
something that happened to their health. Until now the week-over-week
comparison could not tell the difference: both windows are computed in
one request under whatever recipe is in force right now, so the pillar
sets agree, the subtraction looks legitimate, and the dashboard could
announce "your score dropped 14 points" to someone who had just come
back from the settings page.
The recipe now carries its own dated identity, and the delta guard
compares against it the same way it already compares against the global
method boundary: a recipe that changed between the two windows
suppresses the delta with a new reason, config_changed, and the surfaces
that gate on an unexplained delta stay quiet. The score record stores
the recipe version and its change date on every write, resolved from the
same stored blob the composition came from, so a row can say which
recipe produced it. A new series module reads those versions back, marks
the first day after a change as a break, refuses to join the composite
line across it, and keeps the per-pillar rows running through it: a
pillar is graded against its own reference band and stays comparable
when the average of the pillars does not.
The notice key folds the person's recipe version in beside the method
version, so a change in either raises the existing dismissible notice
once and dismissing one never dismisses the other. An account that never
chose keeps its old key untouched.
The module-to-pillar mapping had no test of its own. It lived in
ternaries, so the only way to notice it had changed was for someone's
score to change.
The new file drives the real reader against a fake database and pins
three things. The composition for every module combination with no
stored recipe, compared against the old expression written out verbatim,
which is what makes it a before-and-after rather than a restatement. The
difference between a pillar that is selected and has no data yet, which
keeps its row, and a pillar whose module is off, which has no row at
all. And the breadth refusal at read time, whose reason has to be the
shared rule's verdict on the set the reader resolved, so a second copy
of that rule would show up as a disagreement.
Until now the set of pillars behind the Health Score was assembled from
the module switches alone, in a stack of ternaries inside the reader. A
person who turned the sleep module off lost the sleep pillar from their
number as a side effect of a setting about recording data, and there was
nowhere else to say what should count.
The reader now reads the stored recipe and narrows it to the pillars a
module is actually recording. The mapping from module to pillar moves
out of the ternaries into a named map beside the reader, where it can be
read and tested. Glycaemia stays fed by either glucose or labs, which
was the one entry a one-module-per-pillar map would have lost.
Nobody's number moves on upgrade. An account that never opened the new
surface resolves to every pillar, and every pillar narrowed by module
availability is exactly the set the ternaries built, so the inheritance
holds by construction with no backfill.
A pillar the recipe selects whose module is off produces no row at all,
rather than a "waiting for data" line. Turning a module off is a
deliberate act, and asking someone for data they chose to stop recording
would be nagging them in the voice of their own settings.
The delete-all-data guard seeds every table straight from information_schema
so a table added next year is asserted without anyone remembering. A CHECK
constraint defeats that: the generic seeder has no way to guess a value the
constraint accepts, and the whole suite failed on the new table. A Postgres
enum carries the same closed set, the seeder reads it from pg_enum, and
Prisma now types the column instead of trusting a string.
Dropped the day-key format and non-empty-composition checks with it. The
writer builds the key through the timezone helper and refuses an empty
composition before inserting, and the restore validates both against the
wire schema before the transaction opens, so a third copy in the database
bought nothing and cost a hand-written line in a fixture whose point is not
having one. The composite range check stays: free to check, and a number
outside nought to a hundred renders as a score nobody can read.
The scorer and the stored composition both had to answer what a valid
pillar list looks like, and both had their own copy of the answer. One
function next to the catalogue now, used by both.
A new user-scoped table is outside all three by default, and the two
structural guards said so the moment the model landed: the wipe plan and
the backup verdict list both named it as unclassified. It now joins the
wipe list, rides the backup payload as its own spread section, and comes
back through the restore route.
The classification guards only prove a helper exists in a declared file, so
they would pass an unreferenced restore helper. The integration round trip
goes through the real admin restore route instead, with the table emptied
first so a restore that carries nothing cannot pass by leaving what was
already there.
PATCH /api/auth/me/health-score-config takes the pillars a person
wants counted and stores the rest as the deselection list. A selection
that cannot produce a score is refused with a sentence naming what is
missing, using the same rule the scorer applies at read time. The
write evicts the score caches, and so does the modules route, which
changes the same composition and never did.
The fingerprint carried the composition twice: once as its own key and once
as the ordered pillar ids inside the per-pillar triples. No input could make
those two disagree, so the term could not be broken and the test that
claimed to cover it passed with the term removed. Dropped the duplicate and
replaced the test with one that pins what the ids are for: a different set
of pillars producing the same numbers in the same order is a different
standing, and now reads as one.
Reads the stored deselection list into the pillar set the scorer and
the settings surface both work from. An absent list means the person
never chose and keeps counting everything; a present list is an
authored recipe and is never widened. Ids outside the catalogue are
dropped on read rather than failing the whole blob, so one unknown
string cannot discard a recipe someone wrote.
Every surface that shows a score now goes through one entry point that
computes it and writes the day down, rather than three surfaces each
remembering to. The write is an insert that yields on conflict, so a second
computation of the same day leaves the first row alone, and a failure is
annotated rather than thrown: a score that renders must not disappear
because a bookkeeping insert did.
The fingerprint covers exactly what the stored composite and band depend on
- the algorithm version, the composition, and each counted pillar's score
with its scoring-mode identity. A pillar that was graded but not counted
stays out of both the fingerprint and the row, because it did not
contribute to the number being stored.
The composite needs three distinct domains and one physiological
pillar. Until now only the scorer could narrow the pillar set, so the
rule lived inside it. A settings write can narrow it too, and a second
copy of the rule would drift, so both layers now call the same
function over the same pillar-to-domain map.
The score is the worse of the systolic and diastolic sub-scores, and
until now nothing said which one it was or how far over its ceiling the
reading sat. The grader now returns that basis together with the score,
as one value, and it is carried as one value all the way to the pillar
so an explanation can never belong to a different grading run than the
number it explains.
Marc-André Bombeck