v2.0.0

2.0.0 — "Done"

No new analysis. No new command. This release exists to change what the README
describes from something growing into something finished, and the arc plan set
four conditions for saying that. Three held when they were audited. The fourth
did not, and finding out why is most of what this release contains.

The surface is frozen at 46 commands. That is the promise a major version
exists to make: the 46th was the receipt, and there will not be a 47th. What
follows 2.0 is maintenance — prices re-reviewed on their own per-provider
clocks, models added and retired, corrections, security.

The condition that failed

"Every analysis this product can perform offline, it performs."

ROADMAP.md was offering to build two things it had already shipped. The
editor extension went out as trazum-vscode in 1.86.0 and the per-model-family
tokenizer as @trazum/tokenizer-openai in 1.85.0, and the same file recorded
both as released two hundred lines above while the section headed Under
consideration went on calling them ideas — one of them with the words "still
unscheduled".

Both are gone from that section, and roadmap-truth.test.js holds it: no entry
may be titled after a workspace that ships, and every entry left must say what
blocks it. It derives from package.json's workspaces, so a package added later
arrives without being invited.

The three entries that remain are genuinely unbuilt and each names what stops
it: more contradiction axes (not enough real prompts to know which earn their
place), more locales (nobody who reads the language), and cost alerting (it
needs somewhere to run and something to remember).

Five analyses that read prompts too narrowly

Each of these found less than it claimed to, and each failed silently — the
worst kind, because a detector that reports nothing looks exactly like a prompt
with nothing wrong in it.

• The schema reader named four formats in its own filter and could read one.
  It advertised JSON, YAML, TypeScript and more; only one path actually parsed.
• The example detector was blind to nine of fourteen labellings, and six of
  those are the ones people actually write.
• The tag Anthropic's own documentation tells people to use found nothing.
  <example> blocks were invisible to the few-shot analysis.
• trazum prune stated something false with confidence on a prompt whose
  examples it could not separate.
• The contradiction detector missed eight of eleven ordinary phrasings. The
  four axes were right; the fragments that recognise them were not.

One shape is still deliberately unread, and it is written down. Inline
examples inside a paragraph are not detected, and saying so beats implying
otherwise.

Four masks that broke what they promised to protect

• The optimiser broke email addresses and reported a saving for it. Five of
  ten realistic addresses came out corrupted: please@example.com became
  @example.com, and so did thanks@, basically@, essentially.ops@ and
  very.important@. The politeness, filler and intensifier rules read the local
  part as prose. What is left is not a wrong address, it is not an address.
• That email mask then shipped with a quadratic quantifier, and CI caught
  what this machine could not: the container is about six times faster than the
  runner, so a 897ms regression measured as comfortable here. RFC 5321's own
  bounds fixed it — 8ms.
• The rules were rewriting indented code, and the module said so in a
  comment. Indentation stripped, keywords sentence-capitalised, and string
  literals edited: a SQL clause that matched a different value, a payload
  carrying a different reason. CommonMark's rule that an indented block cannot
  interrupt a paragraph is what makes the fix a specification rather than a
  guess.
• A trim ran after unmasking, so the last thing to touch a prompt could edit
  what every mask had just promised to leave alone. Found through idempotence
  rather than through a report: 54 of 1,500 corpus inputs.

Four lists nothing held to what they described

The recurring fault of this release, in four places. A list written from the
same list it guards agrees with itself by construction.

• RECEIPT_LINE_FIELDS, the published list of what leaves a machine, said
  its guard caught a field added to ReceiptLine. It could not: the guard reads
  the keys a receipt emits, and a field populated in one branch — which is the
  shape a leak takes — is on the type and on no emitted line. A plant added one
  and all twelve checks passed.
• Ten config key lists were second copies of interfaces. A setting added to
  the type and not the list is refused by name; a key on the list the type does
  not have is accepted and never read, which for a budget is a green build for a
  prompt nobody measured.
• The NUL-byte guard, which is what makes every other guard reviewable,
  walked eleven hand-written directories and missed 289 of 822 source files —
  including two published packages, the editor extension and the plugin.
• The roadmap, above.

All four are bound to what they describe now, five of them as compile errors
rather than tests.

Three documents that stated what was no longer true

• Nine documents told readers the optimiser would break their email addresses
  and their indented code. Both are protected. Every one had been correct when
  it was written.
• The number the README calls "the entire argument for this tool" was stated
  in three places and checked in one. The drawing was held to the pricing
  catalogue; the alt text, the caption, and the ratio between the two figures
  were not.
• The README told people to pin an Action two releases old, and the
  release document asked a question the release had already answered.

Two smaller things, recorded rather than dropped

• One filler family covered two constructions in English where Spanish
  covered five. Corrected, and the wider claim that first accompanied it —
  "the English list was the thinnest in the file" — was measured, found false,
  and narrowed.
• A measured negative result, kept so nobody re-derives it: an approach that
  looked promising, was tried, and did not work.

What this release did not do

The per-provider price review. docs/releasing.md step 7 asks for the
pricing page of every provider more than 45 days stale to be opened and compared
before a release. Three are: openai, moonshot and xai, at 67 days each. The
session that prepared this release could not reach those pages — its network
policy permits npm, PyPI and Anthropic and nothing else — and a date moved
without looking is the one thing this product refuses absolutely. So the dates
stand where they are, the catalogue's headline date stays 2026-06-24, and every
figure derived from those three providers is reported as stale by the product
itself, which is what that machinery is for.