Here is what saucier show mornay printed at v0.5.0, cut to the two lines that matter:

  parent  bechamel

Boil one pint of Béchamel Sauce with one-quarter pint of the _fumet_

The record says Mornay derives from Béchamel. The sentence underneath, at line 2439 of the 1909 text, two lines below the heading of entry 91, says what is done with the Béchamel, and the record does not read it. The Marrow Sauce post spent two and a half thousand words getting the parent edge right, and the edge it got right is an input with the operation stripped off. A parent says what a sauce is built from. It does not say boil, reduce, or finish, and it does not say how much or how far.

v0.6.0 reads that sentence, for one preparation, by hand. The census does not move: 151 sauces, 57 derived, 94 unresolved in the 1909 text, and 140, 50, 90 in the 1907 scan, the same census as the stream post, whose 151 and 140 these split. What moves is the record underneath one of them.

Six operations, in the book's order

$ uv run saucier show mornay
MORNAY SAUCE
entry 91, line 2437, transcription of escoffier-1909
  term  MORNAY SAUCE  [en]  mornay-sauce
  parent  bechamel
  procedure  6 operations, recorded by hand
    Boil      Béchamel Sauce [fr] 1 pint, fumet [fr] 1/4 pint
    Reduce    criterion: by a good quarter (unresolved)
    add       Gruyère [fr] 2 oz., Parmesan [en] 2 oz.
    Put       duration: a few minutes (unresolved), on the fire again
    stirring  instrument: small whisk, criterion: the melting of the cheese (unresolved)
    Finish    butter [en] 2 oz., away from the fire, added by degrees

And the eight lines it was read from, lines 2439 to 2446 of the committed corpus, exactly as Project Gutenberg transcribed them:

Boil one pint of Béchamel Sauce with one-quarter pint of the fumet of the fish, poultry, or vegetable, which is to constitute the dish. Reduce by a good quarter, and add two oz. of Gruyère and two oz. of grated Parmesan.

Put the sauce on the fire again for a few minutes, and ensure the melting of the cheese by stirring with a small whisk. Finish the sauce away from the fire with two oz. of butter added by degrees.

Every line on the right is a run of words on the left. Boil takes two inputs, each with the quantity the text gives: one pint, one-quarter pint. Reduce takes nothing and carries a criterion, the words the reduction is carried to. add takes two cheeses at two ounces each. Put carries a duration and a constraint, on the fire again. stirring carries an instrument and a criterion. Finish takes the butter and two constraints, away from the fire and added by degrees. That is the whole entry, and nothing in it is inferred. ADR-0017 is the record of the shape, and the glossary gains ten terms for it, because this project uses one word per thing and this release needed ten new things: procedure, operation, wording, input, parameter, criterion, constraint, instrument, recorder, unrecorded.

Three slots the text left empty

Look at the three (unresolved) marks. Béchamel gets 1 pint. Gruyère gets 2 oz.. The reduction gets by a good quarter, and no number. The return to the fire gets a few minutes, and no number. The stirring gets the melting of the cheese, which is a criterion with no number in it at all.

That is deliberate, and it is the same rule this series has applied to parents since the first post. A parameter holds the words, the number the words give, and the unit they name. one-quarter pint records the fraction one over four and the unit pint. a few minutes records the unit minutes and no number, because the text gives none. by a good quarter names a degree and not a quantity, so it records no number either. No code fills the slot. Anyone who has cooked a Mornay knows roughly how many minutes "a few" is, and a model would happily write 3. The parser writes nothing, because Escoffier wrote nothing, and the moment this record holds a number the book does not the record stops being the baseline a model has to beat.

The stream post argued that null in a parent field means the source declined to state one, never that the sauce has none. This is the first time the same absence is recorded against something other than a parent. A duration with no number is a fact about the text.

The record cannot say what the entry does not

The six operations are Python literals in an adapter, written by hand against lines 2439 to 2446. A hand can misquote. So the command never prints a procedure it has not first found in the body.

Each operation carries its wording, the whole clause it was read from. Each input, criterion, duration, and constraint carries its own wording, and the entity refuses an element whose words do not lie inside its operation's wording. Then, before show prints anything, it collapses whitespace on both sides and looks for each operation's wording in the body, in order, each one after the last. An operation the body does not carry, or carries out of order, is reported, and the command exits 2 with nothing on standard output:

$ uv run saucier show mornay   # with a hand record that says "by a good half"
saucier: MORNAY SAUCE at line 2437 of escoffier-1909 does not state 'Reduce by a good half'
[exit 2]

The first version of this printed the title, the reference, the terms, and the parent before it ran the check, so a piped reader got half a record and then a non-zero exit. Review caught it, and the check now runs before the first byte. The stream post's first reader accepted a file missing its last line. This release's first show printed half a preparation beside a refusal. Same lesson, one layer up: a check that runs after the output has started is a comment.

What the check proves is narrow, and the ADR says so. It proves the words are there and in that order. It does not prove the reader parsed the clause correctly. Three choices in the Mornay record are the reader's, and they are written down so a disagreement has something to point at. ensure the melting of the cheese by stirring with a small whisk records the verb as stirring, with the melting as the criterion and the whisk as the instrument. the sauce and the cheese name the preparation in progress and are not inputs. Put the sauce on the fire again names no heat, so no heat is recorded.

The scan keeps its verb and loses its parent

The 1907 witness carries the same entry at line 2864, and the release records a second procedure for it, in the scan's words, because a procedure quotes its witness and the two witnesses do not read alike:

$ uv run saucier show morn-ay-sauce --source escoffier-1907
MORN AY SAUCE
entry 91, line 2864, ocr of escoffier-1907
  term  MORN AY SAUCE  [en]  morn-ay-sauce
  parent  (unresolved)
  stated  no candidate
  procedure  6 operations, recorded by hand
    Boil      Bdchamel Sauce [fr] 1 pint, fumet [fr] 1/4 pint
    Reduce    criterion: by a good quarter (unresolved)
    add       Gruy^re [fr] 2 oz., Parmesan [en] 2 oz.
    Put       duration: a few minutes (unresolved), on the fire again
    stirring  instrument: small whisk, criterion: the melting of the cheese (unresolved)
    Finish    butter [en] 2 oz., away from the fire, added by degrees

The heading reads MORN AY SAUCE, so show mornay finds nothing in the scan. The first input reads Bdchamel Sauce, whose folded form reaches no catalogued name, so the scan's Mornay has no parent and no candidate. The text resolves it. The verb is on the record in both. Gruy^re stays Gruy^re, and the Reduce clause carries the running page header 40 GUIDE TO MODERN COOKERY inside its wording, because the scan carries it there and ADR-0013 repairs the punctuation that delimits a record, never the characters inside one. The Périgueux page break from the stream post is the same running header, ten pages earlier, doing the same damage.

The one difference that is not the scanner

The second-copy post ended on a sentence I have repeated in every post since: not one confirmed editorial difference between the 1907 and 1909 printings. Every candidate was the scanner or the reader. The README said so at v0.5.0.

Writing the 1907 procedure by hand meant reading line 2867 of the scan against line 2440 of the text, word by word, because the check would refuse anything else. The fumet is of that fish which is to constitute the dish in 1907. It is of the fish, poultry, or vegetable, which is to constitute the dish in 1909. No scanner adds two nouns and three commas. Between the first printing and the revised edition the sentence widened, from fish to fish, poultry, or vegetable. Whose hand widened it, the two texts do not say.

That is one difference, confirmed by hand, on two lines anyone can open. The diff command has still confirmed none, and the README now says exactly that: the diff has confirmed nothing, and one difference has been confirmed by a reader with both texts in front of them. It took recording a procedure to find it, because a procedure quotes the witness and a parent only names it. bechamel is the same concept in both books. of that fish and of the fish, poultry, or vegetable are not the same words.

What I am not claiming

One preparation is recorded, once per witness, and a test pins the count at one. Two procedures written by hand is not extraction. The rule that would read a second one out of an entry does not exist yet, and until it does the count stays where it is. What does exist is the port the hand record enters through, and the line recorded by hand in the output is the recorder naming itself. A rule reader, or a model, is another implementation behind the same port, and whatever it records will say who read it. Cardinal Sauce, entry 69, still boils Béchamel and finishes with lobster butter and still records no parent, because two catalogued names sit in its opening paragraph and a resolver may refuse, never rank. The verb that would tell those two names apart, one boiled and one added at the finish, is exactly what a procedure carries. Reading it by rule is the record after this one, and the ten sauces the line-1437 post lost to a butter are waiting on it.

The procedure is not stored and the interchange does not carry it. show fetches it beside the preparation, checks it, and prints it. The JSON files under data/ did not change, saucier/1 did not change, and a consumer of the stream sees no operation. ADR-0016 says a new field earns a new schema version, and one preparation does not earn one.

And the parent field is untouched. The procedure sits beside it and never writes it. Mornay's first operation boils Béchamel, which is its parent, and that agreement is a check on the resolver, not a replacement for it.

Everything here reproduces from the tag:

$ git clone https://github.com/Alberto-Codes/saucier
$ cd saucier && git checkout v0.6.0
$ uv sync && uv run saucier parse
$ uv run saucier show mornay
$ uv run saucier show morn-ay-sauce --source escoffier-1907
$ sed -n 2437,2446p corpus/escoffier-1909.txt
$ sed -n 2864,2878p corpus/escoffier-1907.txt

Six operations, five quantities the book gives, three it withholds, and one sentence Escoffier changed between two printings. If the record says something lines 2439 to 2446 do not, or reads one of the three choices above differently than you would, the issue template asks for the entry number and the source lines. Line 2440 is where I would start.

The release: saucier v0.6.0 — the first recorded procedure: saucier show mornay prints six operations in the book's own words, five quantities the text gives and three it withholds left unresolved rather than guessed, every word checked against the source before it prints. MIT.