refactor: change ordering of checks to reflect parameter order

[Planeshifter]

Description

Aligning outliers in stats/base/dists/gumbel with namespace majority patterns (random namespace pick, seed 20260502).

Namespace summary

• Members analyzed: 15 (all non-autogenerated children of stats/base/dists/gumbel/)
• Majority threshold: 12/15 (≥75%)
• Features analyzed: file tree, package.json shape, manifest.json presence, README sections (set + order), test/benchmark/examples filenames, public signature, validation prologue, return kind, error construction, JSDoc shape, dependencies
• Features with clear majority that produced advancing corrections: validation prologue (1 outlier)
• Features with clear majority but no advancing corrections: structural drift on ctor, mgf, skewness — all dropped (see Validation)
• Features without clear majority: none — all observed features either reached 75% or had a single dominant value

quantile

Reorders the validation prologue so p is checked before mu and beta, matching the parameter-declaration order and the convention followed by 13 of 14 sibling packages in the stats/base/dists/gumbel/ namespace. No behavioral change — all validation branches return NaN.

Validation

What was checked:

• Structural feature extraction across all 15 members (file tree, package.json/manifest.json keys, README headings, test/benchmark/examples file naming).
• Semantic feature extraction (public signature, validation prologue, return kind, error construction, JSDoc shape, dependencies) across the 14 function-style packages.
• Three independent validation passes against the merged outlier list:
  1. Opus semantic-review on the quantile validation prologue → confirmed-drift (no domain reason for the reorder; identical behavior; signature, JSDoc, and README all describe p first).
  2. Opus cross-reference on quantile's tests, examples, factory, and namespace re-exports → safe-to-apply (no test or external reference depends on the textual order of the || predicates; the factory's hot loop already validates only p).
  3. Sonnet structural-review on ctor, mgf, and skewness outliers → all rejected as inapplicable or cascading.

What was deliberately excluded:

• ctor's missing native bindings, gypfile, manifest.json, and ## C APIs sections — inapplicable to a JavaScript constructor with property accessors.
• mgf's missing test/fixtures/julia/ directory — would require cascading test.js rewrites to consume the fixtures; out of scope for a mechanical drift fix.
• skewness's missing test/fixtures/julia/ directory — Gumbel skewness is a parameter-independent constant; Julia ground-truth fixtures are mathematically meaningless here.
• All features whose only outliers fell into the above categories.

Other

This PR is the output of a per-namespace cross-package drift-detection routine. Random target namespace picked uniformly from eligible namespaces (≥8 non-autogenerated members) using seed 20260502. The full per-feature majority/conformance/outlier breakdown and the per-agent verdicts are recorded in the local report at ~/drift-reports/drift-stats-base-dists-gumbel-2026-05-02.md.

Checklist

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

• Yes
• No

How AI assistance was used:

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

This PR was authored by Claude Code running an automated cross-package drift-detection routine. The routine extracted structural and semantic features from every member of stats/base/dists/gumbel/, computed per-feature majority patterns at a 75% threshold, and dispatched three independent agents (two Opus, one Sonnet) to validate the surviving findings. Only one finding survived all three checks; the corresponding patch is the single-line reorder applied here.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/base/dists/gumbel/quantile	$\color{green}296/296$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}23/23$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}4/4$ $\color{green}+100.00%$	$\color{green}296/296$ $\color{green}+100.00%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.