P1: semantic SV quality and measurement context#48
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ff527ae725
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| 1 => SvQualityValidity.Reserved, | ||
| 2 => SvQualityValidity.Invalid, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Decode validity values with the established bit mapping
When a stream carries validity bits 01 (for example, the Publisher's Invalid selection), this branch reports Reserved; conversely, 10 is reported as Invalid. The existing publisher encoding defines Invalid = 1 and Reserved = 2, so the subscriber's displayed and exported semantic quality is incorrect even though both values currently result in BAD health. Swap these two mappings and update the regression expectations.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L7-L7
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Scope
This phase builds on the merged adaptive multivendor P0 foundation and focuses on quality semantics, explicit measurement domains, and evidence fidelity.
Implemented
Validation at head
ff527aeValidation boundary
The quality bit model follows the standard Quality components; the additional Derived flag is enabled only as an installed-base profile extension. Device identity is evidence metadata and is not used as a decoding or scaling rule.
Pending after this tranche