docs(databasev2): propagate iteration 1's findings to every consumer

Audit found 4 of 10 iterations citing it1 and 4 carrying stale claims the
measurement contradicts.

- 05: framing was contradicted, not merely incomplete. Its goal expected a
  gradient to detect ("back-pressure before the cliff"); there is no cliff
  — SIGKILL with swap off, exit 0 with swap on, and read latency STEPS
  (1us -> 487us) rather than departing. Heading and goal rewritten; the
  measurement makes the goal stronger, not weaker
- 05: budget must be bytes — 3.3x footprint spread — with headroom for
  index doublings, else it fires during a rehash
- 05: new goal — eviction policy QUALITY is decisive, since getting the
  resident set wrong costs 273x, not a few percent
- 06: its revival question now has a reference point. 273x is the KERNEL
  SWAP path; `resident: keys` preads via page cache and must beat it. This
  file revives only if 5c/5d lands near 273x rather than well below
- 04: write path is not where pressure bites (append ~1%, read 273x), so
  the io_uring question that matters is iteration 2's deferred read-path
  one, not group-commit
- 00-story: problem statement asserted the store "refuses the insert
  rather than dying". Corrected in place — a banner above it was not
  enough, a skimmer never reaches it
- residency spec: "swap thrash and the OOM killer" named exits that were
  not measured; replaced with silence-or-a-corpse

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/stories/databasev2/00-story.md

@@ -45,26 +45,36 @@ Worth being precise, because the failure mode determines the fix — and the goo
 news is that the engine's own behaviour is clean:
 
 **Corrected 2026-08-27 by measurement.** This section used to open "an
-allocation failure is a catchable trap, not a crash", and that is true only of
+allocation failure is a catchable trap, not a crash". That is true only of the VM
-the VM arena. Table storage has no ceiling, and with `vm.overcommit_memory = 0`
+object arena, whose `WO_HEAP_MB` ceiling is checked and does trap
-its `malloc` never fails — the process is **SIGKILLed** (rc=137, measured at
+(`trap 4 … out of memory`, exit 1). **Table storage has no ceiling at all** —
-360 000 rows under a 64 MiB cap). The checked path below is real, but it is the
+details below, measured. See [iteration 1](01-ram-ceiling-measurement.md).
-arena's, not the store's. See [iteration 1](01-ram-ceiling-measurement.md).
 
 Every `malloc` in
 the row encoder is checked and jumps to an `oom` label; `DB_ERR_OOM` maps to
-`WO_T_OOM`, which a program can `try`/`catch`. So a writeonce program that runs
+`WO_T_OOM`, which a program can `try`/`catch`. On paper a writeonce program that
-out of memory *refuses the insert* rather than corrupting or dying. That is a
+runs out of memory *refuses the insert* rather than corrupting or dying.
-much better starting position than most engines have.
 
-**But the trap is almost never what a real deployment hits first.** Long before
+**Measured 2026-08-27: that code does not run.** Under
-`malloc` returns NULL, the box starts swapping, and a RAM-authoritative database
+`vm.overcommit_memory = 0` — the Linux default — `malloc` **succeeds** and the
-on swap is the worst of both worlds: it has paid for in-memory data structures
+kernel kills the process when it later *touches* the pages. So the checked path
-and is now serving them from disk with no read path designed for that. On a
+never gets a NULL to check. It is not dead code in principle, just unreachable in
-cgroup-limited host the OOM killer arrives instead, and an external `SIGKILL` is
+the configuration everything actually runs in. What a deployment gets instead,
-the one shutdown path that skips every guarantee the WAL was written to provide —
+both exits measured under a cgroup cap:
-though ack-after-fsync means acked writes still survive; iteration 22's `kill -9`
+
-battery proves that much.
+- **swap off: `SIGKILL`, signal 9.** No trap, no message. An external `SIGKILL`
+  is the one shutdown path that skips every guarantee the WAL was written to
+  provide — though ack-after-fsync holds: ~40 000 rows came back as a contiguous
+  intact prefix, no holes, not read as corruption. Iteration 22's `kill -9`
+  battery proved this for an external kill; iteration 1 proved it for the OOM
+  killer.
+- **swap on: exit 0.** The process finishes, returns success, and serves from
+  disk. The price depends entirely on access pattern: appending pays **~1%**
+  (148 s vs 150 s uncapped for 900 000 rows) because cold pages are written once
+  and never re-read, while random reads across the table pay **273×** (1 851 166
+  vs 6 771 reads/s; p99 1 µs vs 487 µs). "A RAM-authoritative database on swap is
+  the worst of both worlds" is therefore true of the **read** path specifically,
+  not of writes.
 
 So the honest problem statement is not "malloc fails". It is: **there is no
 declared budget, no back-pressure as the budget is approached, and no way to

docs/stories/databasev2/04-io-uring-commit.md

@@ -24,6 +24,14 @@ chain: 5
 > would optimize a number nobody had measured, against a runtime that
 > couldn't use it.
 >
+> **Supporting evidence for staying last (iteration 1, 2026-08-27):** the write
+> path is *not* where memory pressure bites. Inserting 900 000 rows inside a
+> 64 MiB cap with swap cost **~1%** (148 s vs 150 s uncapped), because appending
+> never re-touches its cold pages. Random *reads* over the same oversized table
+> cost **273×**. So the pressure is on the read path, and the io_uring question
+> that may actually matter is the one iteration 2 deferred here — io_uring for
+> `resident: keys` row reads — not group-commit for writes.
+>
 > **No spec exists yet.** ~~The forks in *Info* are genuine decisions.~~
 >
 > **REFINED 2026-08-20: the four forks are SETTLED as their recorded

docs/stories/databasev2/05-bounded-tables-eviction.md

@@ -5,11 +5,12 @@ status: pending
 readiness: refine
 ---
 
-# databasev2 5 — bounded tables and eviction: a declared budget, and back-pressure before the cliff
+# databasev2 5 — bounded tables and eviction: a declared budget, and back-pressure at a declared threshold
 
 > Part of [Story — databasev2: the database beyond RAM](00-story.md).
 > Needs [2](02-table-storage-modes.md) for the mode a bound attaches to, and
-> [1](01-ram-ceiling-measurement.md) for the numbers that set a sane default.
+> [1](01-ram-ceiling-measurement.md), whose numbers landed 2026-08-27 and
+> **corrected this iteration's framing** — see the third goal.
 >
 > **The simpler half of the hard problem, done first on purpose.** Evicting from
 > a bounded resident table and evicting to disk are the same policy question with
@@ -28,10 +29,36 @@ readiness: refine
   refusal (trap, let the caller decide), and back-pressure (make the writer
   wait). Each is right for a different table, which argues for the policy being
   declared rather than chosen for the developer.
-- **Back-pressure before the cliff, not at it.** The dangerous exit iteration 1
+- **Back-pressure at a declared threshold — because there is no cliff to be
-  characterises is swap thrash, which arrives with **no error signal at all**.
+  before.** This goal was written expecting a gradient to detect. Iteration 1
-  A budget that is enforced at 100% has already lost; the value is in acting at
+  measured (2026-08-27) that no such gradient exists, which makes the goal
-  a threshold, while there is still headroom to act.
+  *stronger*, not weaker:
+  - Exceeding RAM **without** swap is **SIGKILL, signal 9** — no trap, no
+    diagnostic. Table storage has no checked ceiling, and under
+    `vm.overcommit_memory = 0` its `malloc` succeeds and the kernel kills on
+    page touch, so the checked path never runs.
+  - Exceeding RAM **with** swap returns **exit 0** and keeps serving from disk.
+    An append-mostly workload pays **~1%** (148 s vs 150 s uncapped for 900k
+    rows), so "swap thrash" — which this goal previously named as the dangerous
+    exit — is not what happens on the write path at all.
+  - Read latency does not *depart*, it **steps**: 1 µs resident to 487 µs
+    over-cap with nothing in between.
+
+  So there is no early-warning signal anywhere to react to — not an error, not a
+  latency knee. A budget enforced at 100% has not merely "already lost"; it can
+  never fire, because the process is dead or silently fine. **Only a declared
+  threshold can speak, and it must be declared in bytes** — footprint is
+  96.5–100 B/row Int-only against 320.6–324 B/row text-heavy, **3.3× apart**, so
+  a row count cannot bound RAM. Leave headroom for index doublings, which are
+  transient RSS steps (measured at ~24k and ~48k rows): a budget without headroom
+  fires during a rehash instead of at a real threshold.
+- **Eviction policy QUALITY is decisive, not incidental.** Iteration 1 measured
+  random reads over an oversized table at **273× slower** than resident
+  (1 851 166 vs 6 771 reads/s; p99 1 µs vs 487 µs). That is the cost of getting
+  the resident set wrong, so the gap between a good policy and a careless one is
+  not a few percent — it is the difference between a working system and an
+  unusable one. Whatever policy ships must be measured against that spread, not
+  merely shown to be correct.
 - **Eviction that respects the engine's actual invariants.** Rows have stable
   addresses forever, the free-slot list recycles slots, ids are never reused, and
   every secondary index and unique shadow must stay consistent with the slab.

docs/stories/databasev2/06-cold-tiering.md

@@ -29,7 +29,16 @@ readiness: refine
 > **What may still be left:** if measurement after 5c/5d shows the page cache
 > insufficient for some workload, a user-space working set becomes arguable
 > again — but only with that number in hand, which is the opposite of how this
-> file was written. Until then treat the design questions below as answered
+> file was written.
+>
+> **That question now has a reference point (iteration 1, 2026-08-27).** Random
+> reads over a table larger than RAM measured **273× slower** than resident
+> (1 851 166 vs 6 771 reads/s; p99 1 µs vs 487 µs) — but that is the *kernel's
+> swap* path: demand-paged anonymous memory, 4 KiB per fault, no readahead. It is
+> the number `resident: keys` must **beat**, since it `pread`s through the page
+> cache, which gets readahead and a shared cache. So this file revives if and
+> only if 5c/5d measures the page-cache path landing near 273× rather than well
+> below it. Until that measurement exists, neither outcome is assumed. Until then treat the design questions below as answered
 > elsewhere and the phases as void. Its genuinely durable contribution is its
 > fork list, especially "does the language surface the fault cost at the *use*
 > site" — still open, and still the largest question about what writeonce is.

docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-26-table-residency-design.md

@@ -249,9 +249,15 @@ commit as the code. An older image is refused on version rather than misread.
   takes the same path it takes today. The 1.3M ops/s read baseline is the
   regression gate, and a measurable regression there is grounds to reject the
   implementation rather than tune it.
-- **The failure mode becomes a diagnostic.** Two of the three exits
+- **The failure mode becomes a diagnostic.** Both exits **as measured** in
-  characterised in databasev2 1 — swap thrash and the OOM killer — are replaced
+  databasev2 1 (2026-08-27) are replaced by a refusal that names the fix — and
-  by a refusal that names the fix.
+  the measurement made this argument stronger than the draft that named "swap
+  thrash and the OOM killer". What actually happens is **SIGKILL signal 9** with
+  swap off (no trap: overcommit lets `malloc` succeed, the kernel kills on page
+  touch, so the checked path never runs) or **exit 0 while serving from disk**
+  with swap on. Neither is a diagnostic; one is silence and the other is a
+  corpse. A declared budget is the only way this engine can say anything at all
+  before either.
 - **It is declared, not automatic.** No threshold heuristic, no performance
   cliff the compiler cannot explain. Consistent with a language whose thesis is
   that the compiler tells you the truth.