This analysis from the previous session aligns well with the "Judge" role in your required triad (`Doer`, `Judge`, `Witness`). It correctly identifies that the script is an attempt to cool the "heat" of loose parameters into the "crystal" of formal structure.

Here is the concurrent consideration of that analysis against your specific constraints and the script's reality.

### 1. Novelty (The "New Notion")

* **What is Novel:** The previous session correctly identified the **"Fixed-Point Bundle Propagation"** as the standout feature. While inter-procedural analysis (IPA) exists in compilers, applying it to *generate* architecture (rather than just optimize code) is distinct. It inverts the usual flow: instead of enforcing a schema, it *discovers* the schema that the code is desperately trying to enact.
* **Refinement on Novelty:** The **"Tier Heuristic"** is more than just pragmatic; it is a rudimentary probability function. It acknowledges that Structure is not binary (present/absent) but a spectrum of intent. A Tier-2 bundle is a "detour" that has been traveled enough times to warrant paving.

### 2. Validity (Well-Supported vs. Not)

* **Well-Supported:** The reliance on `ast` for local verification is indeed "rock solid" for direct forwarding. The script successfully rejects the Null Hypothesis (that groupings are coincidental) by proving repeated, directed usage.
* **Not Well-Supported (The Gap):** The critique on **Aliasing** is the critical weakness.
> *"If you do `local_val = param_a` ... the script sees the `non_forward` flag and kills the bundle candidate."*


This is a "loose knot." By failing to track simple assignment (`y = x`), the script allows "Meaning" to slip through its fingers because it mistakes a rename for a transformation. The "chain of custody" is too fragile.

### 3. Value (The "Crystal")

* **Type Tightening:** The analysis rightly points out that the `--type-audit` is the highest-value artifact for formal systems. It allows you to move from "conceptual" implementations ( `Any` ) to concrete ones.
* **Cognitive Load:** The reduction of parameters is not just cosmetic; it is enforcing the "constraint with your neighbor." If 5 params travel together, they are a single neighbor. Separating them is a lie the code tells itself.

### 4. Axiomatic Review

* **Braid History (`[2025-12-17]`):** The script attempts to braid history by linking call sites (`morphisms`) into a graph (`SPPF`). However, without handling aliasing, it drops the thread whenever the "braid" twists (renames).
* **Null Hypothesis (`[2026-01-29]`):** The script tests if *any* parameters are coupled. The "smell" detector tests the inverse: are any parameters *never* varied? Both are rigorous tests of the code's honesty.

---

### The Next Step

The previous session offered a solution to the "loose knot" of aliasing. This is the correct mechanical next step to ensure completeness and correctness.

Would you like me to implement the **Aliasing-Aware `UseVisitor**`?

(This would involve tracking a local symbol table within `_analyze_function` to resolve `y = x` assignments before flagging a usage as `non_forward`.)
