46c0b63de8
Finding-B from doc/reviewer/external-audit-2026-05-30.md. The Euclidean Gauss–Bonnet identity Σ(2π−Θ_v) = 2π·χ is ONLY valid for flat/Euclidean and spherical metrics. For hyperbolic metrics (HyperIdeal) the correct identity is Σ(2π−Θ_v) − Area(M) = 2π·χ. The previously provided gauss_bonnet_sum(HyperIdealMaps) overload would silently pass the wrong LHS to check_gauss_bonnet, which would always throw "deficit = ±Area" for valid hyperbolic targets. Fix: - gauss_bonnet_sum(mesh, HyperIdealMaps) → = delete + explanation comment - enforce_gauss_bonnet(mesh, HyperIdealMaps&) → = delete + explanation comment - Header box comment rewritten with the correct hyperbolic Gauss–Bonnet identity and a clear "HyperIdeal: NOT SUPPORTED" section New test in test_phase6.cpp: - HyperIdeal_EuclideanSumDiscrepancy_DocumentsWhyCheckIsDeleted verifies numerically that the Euclidean sum = 0 but 2π·χ = 4π for a regular tetrahedron, documenting the −4π discrepancy that motivated the deletion - Three compile-time static_asserts (SFINAE) confirm the overload is not invocable with HyperIdealMaps but remains so with Euclidean/SphericalMaps 263/263 CGAL tests pass, 0 failed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reviewer meeting materials
A single landing page for the three documents associated with an external-reviewer meeting. The materials are written for a peer who actively publishes in discrete differential geometry — specifically the decorated-DCE / Penner-coordinates / hyperideal-polyhedra / canonical-tessellations research line — and who would potentially use conformallab++ as numerical infrastructure for their own future experiments.
| Document | Audience | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
briefing.md |
the reviewer | one-page orientation: what the project is, where to look first, what we want from them |
questions.md |
the reviewer | the 5 concrete decisions we want their opinion on (skim before the meeting) |
agenda.md |
me | my own meeting playbook: timing, order, the "no" question, post-meeting memo template |
After the meeting, a fourth file 2026-XX-XX-meeting-notes.md should
land here too — the memo template at the bottom of agenda.md is the
suggested structure.
When to send to the reviewer
- briefing.md + questions.md: as part of the meeting-confirmation email, ~5 business days before the meeting. Subject line: "Pre-read for our conformallab++ chat (~15 min)".
- agenda.md: never send. This is internal scaffolding.
Hub-Page durability
The reviewer hub HTML at https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/
is published from doc/reviewer/hub.html in the repo (not from a
detached preview branch). This means:
- Merging any of the open PRs into
maintriggers.gitea/workflows/doxygen-pages.ymlwhich republishes the hub alongside fresh Doxygen HTML — the reviewer URL stays live across merges with no manual intervention. - The hub is source-controlled, so changes are reviewable via PR like any other doc, and old versions live in git history.
- The original Doxygen index moves to
/doxygen.htmlwhenever the hub override is active; both are reachable from the hub itself.
Quick links the reviewer should bookmark
- 🌐 Reviewer-hub landing page: https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/ (the hub shows status badges, a "what's new" banner with the most recent delta, the research-alignment table, and direct links into every document below)
- 📦 Source: https://codeberg.org/TMoussa/ConformalLabpp
- 📝 Architecture decisions (incl. the Q7 "no" prompt):
../architecture/locked-vs-flexible.md - 📐 Schläfli derivation (for Q3):
../math/hyperideal-hessian-derivation.md - 📚 Literature index (for Q1 + Q3):
../math/references.md - 🗺️ Per-phase roadmap (for Q1):
../roadmap/phases.md - 🧪 Research-track entries with acceptance criteria (Q1 + Q2):
../roadmap/research-track.md