🏗 Architecture¶

Status: reference. Written 2026-08-06. Updated 2026-09-08.

What actually runs, what each part writes, and which parts are optional.

Written for someone who has the pipeline working and now wants to change something. Pick a parser backend, decide whether the enrichment layer is worth building, wire a new script into the chain, or work out why a command needs a virtual environment when the one next to it does not.

Assumed you have run the Quickstart at least once. Not covered here: every flag of every command (CLI.md), every setting (CONFIG.md), the internal design rationale and failure analysis (DESIGN.md), and how to work on the repository itself (DEVELOPER.md, git checkout only).

🧭 Table of contents¶

The four layers
Layer 1: the corpus layer
Layer 2: the drafting layer
Layer 3: the enrichment layer
Layer 4: the review layer
Incremental by default, honest about failure
What is reproducible, and what is not
What this architecture does not do
What each capability requires
Which interpreter, and why
Ladders and tiers
One writer at a time

🧩 The four layers¶

Four layers: a deterministic corpus layer, a generative drafting layer, an optional enrichment layer that deepens the corpus for whoever wants it, and an advisory review layer you run by hand over a finished draft. The diagram below adds the axis the workflow diagrams leave out: which interpreter each part needs, and who holds the write lock.

The numbers are the order these are introduced, and the order you meet them: you need a corpus before a draft, and there is nothing to review until a draft exists. They are not a dependency rank. The actual dependency graph is acyclic and entirely artefact-mediated -- every edge is one layer reading a file another wrote, and no layer calls into another:

corpus (sync) ──ledger, parsed/──▶ drafting (skills + gate chain) ──draft──▶ review
     │                                    ▲                                    │
     └──▶ enrichment (-m chitragupta.enrich) ─docling/, chroma/, passages──┘              │
                        └───────────────── passages ────────────────────────────┘

Until 4.0.0 that was not quite true in code: the enrichment layer hosted a provenance and a render stage, each a three-line wrapper around a tier-1 command, so the enrichment layer imported the review and drafting layers. Both stages are gone -- run python -m chitragupta.review provenance <draft> and python -m chitragupta.draft render <draft> --format pdf directly, which need no venv and take no lock.

flowchart TB

  subgraph J1["<b>LAYER 1 · CORPUS</b> — deterministic, no LLM, safe unattended"]
    direction TB
    SYNC["<code>chitragupta corpus sync</code><br/><small><b>needs the venv</b> — bibtexparser<br/>holds the write lock · exit 0 / 1 / 2</small>"]
    OUT1[/"<b>content/ledger.sqlite</b> · <b>content/parsed/&lt;citekey&gt;.txt</b>"/]
    SYNC --> OUT1
  end

  subgraph J2["<b>LAYER 2 · DRAFTING</b> — generative, on demand, you review it"]
    direction TB
    SKILL["<b>.claude/skills/</b> — five genre skills<br/><small>read the corpus layer · never write the ledger</small>"]
    CHAIN["<b>the chain, on every draft</b><br/><code>chitragupta draft gate</code> — <b>hard gate</b><br/><code>chitragupta draft references</code><br/><code>chitragupta draft render</code><br/><small><b>bare python, no venv</b> — by design</small>"]
    SKILL --> CHAIN
  end

  subgraph JH["<b>LAYER 3 · ENRICHMENT</b> — optional · you run it, no skill does"]
    direction TB
    FULL["<code>chitragupta enrich --stages …</code><br/><small><b>needs the venv + the enrich group</b><br/>takes the <b>same write lock</b> as sync</small>"]
    OUT3[/"content/docling/ · content/chroma/ · content/topics.json · content/topic_seeds.json · content/topic_set.json"/]
    FULL --> OUT3
  end

  subgraph AID["<b>LAYER 4 · REVIEW</b> — advisory, never a gate · <b>takes no lock</b>"]
    direction TB
    A["<code>chitragupta review provenance</code><br/><code>chitragupta review coverage</code><br/><code>chitragupta review verbatim</code><br/><small>bare python · runs happily during a sync</small>"]
    OUT4[/"<b>content/review/&lt;topic&gt;/&lt;stem&gt;.{provenance,verbatim,coverage}.md</b>"/]
    A --> OUT4
  end

  OUT1 == "the only evidence a writer is given" ==> SKILL
  OUT1 == "the only authority the gate consults" ==> CHAIN
  OUT3 -. "read if present, never built by a skill" .-> SKILL
  OUT3 -. "quotable passages" .-> A
  CHAIN --> A

  classDef det fill:#eef2ff,stroke:#4f46e5,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#1e1b4b
  classDef gen fill:#f0fdf4,stroke:#16a34a,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#052e16
  classDef heavy fill:#faf5ff,stroke:#9333ea,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#3b0764
  classDef store fill:#fff7ed,stroke:#c2410c,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#431407
  classDef aid fill:#f8fafc,stroke:#64748b,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#0f172a

  class SYNC det
  class SKILL,CHAIN gen
  class FULL heavy
  class OUT1,OUT3,OUT4 store
  class A aid

Every module, every file it writes, and the exact edges between them are in DIAGRAMS.md's full workflow -- the same system at source-reading detail, plus ten other views of it.

Two properties carry the safety argument, and both are visible above:

The bibliography is the only entrance. Citekeys come from your own BibTeX export. The pipeline never fetches a paper, never invents a citekey, and never renames one.
The gate is the only exit. chitragupta.draft gate consults content/ledger.sqlite and nothing else, so a citekey no sync ever put there cannot survive into a rendered draft.

📚 Layer 1: the corpus layer¶

One entry point, python -m chitragupta.corpus, with two verbs: sync does the work and ledger reads back what it did. Until 5.2.0 this section said "one command" and meant it — chitragupta.ledger sat outside as a second bare command, which is the gap that release closed.

sync reads papers/bibliography.bib, updates one ledger row per citekey, resolves each PDF from the entry's file field, and extracts text to content/parsed/<citekey>.txt.

Three checks ride along, and none of them is fatal: near-duplicate citekeys, a parse-quality warning when a backend starts losing word boundaries, and a stale-citekey report. Deletion of a stale row happens only under --remove-stale.

It is idempotent and incremental -- a PDF whose bytes haven't changed is not re-parsed -- which is what makes the second run nearly free. Exit codes: 0 clean, 1 the corpus has a hole in it, 2 another writer holds the lock. CLI.md enumerates what counts as a hole -- there are five conditions, and naming a couple of them here is how this line went stale the last time.

ledger is the other half, and deliberately unlike the first: read-only, taking no lock, on the bare-python tier, so it answers "what does the corpus hold?" while a sync is running. Exit codes: 0 on any successful read, 1 for a citekey the ledger doesn't hold.

✍ Layer 2: the drafting layer¶

Nine Claude Code skills in .claude/skills/, one set of grounding rules between them: five that write a new draft, three that revise one that already exists, and book-assembler -- the only one that writes no prose -- which composes an already-drafted book from its accepted units.

Skill	Produces
`survey-writer`	a survey, related-work or background section, topic-clustered, with a comparison table and a gap analysis
`thesis-chapter-writer`	a research-question-driven chapter as a standalone LaTeX fragment you `\input`
`textbook-chapter-writer`	an undergraduate chapter -- worked examples and exercises, for a reader who is studying
`tutorial-writer`	a Diataxis lesson the reader follows at a keyboard to a working result, verified to run
`deep-research`	a multi-perspective, corpus-grounded report -- heavier and slower than the others by design
`draft-reviser`	a scoped edit to a draft that already exists, made from its dossier rather than the corpus -- including repairing citations after a sync moved the corpus
`corpus-reviser`	the same edit discipline over a full retrieval pass, when you ask for the whole corpus to be re-searched
`agenda-reviser`	a repaired draft after a review agenda found unattended findings, one item at a time
`book-assembler`	a composed book from already-accepted units -- front matter, `\part`, `\chapter`, back matter

The two teaching genres are deliberately separate: a textbook chapter explains, a tutorial is verified to run. draft-reviser and corpus-reviser are separate for a different reason: draft-reviser contains no instructions for a wide search, so the cheap path cannot drift into the expensive one -- see GENRE.md. The prose standards all eight prose-writing skills share -- every one but book-assembler, which writes no prose of its own -- and where in the technical-communication literature they come from, are in WRITING-STANDARDS.md.

Each skill retrieves from the corpus layer, drafts into content/drafts/, then runs the same three commands on its own output:

python -m chitragupta.draft gate <draft> -- the hard gate. The skill loops here, fixing and re-running until it exits 0, and presents nothing before that.
python -m chitragupta.draft references <draft> -- an IEEE reference list built from exactly the citekeys the draft cites, numbered by first appearance. Skipped for thesis .tex fragments, where the surrounding LaTeX owns the bibliography.
python -m chitragupta.draft render <draft> --format pdf -- the rendered output. Citations render IEEE-style: numeric [1] markers, [3]-[6] for a consecutive run, over a numbered bibliography built from the citekeys actually cited.

Grounding is enforced, not requested. The gate runs twice on the same draft, and neither run is the skill's own good intentions. A PostToolUse hook runs it on every write under content/drafts/, so a draft cannot be saved with an unverifiable citation even if a skill forgets to check. The skill then runs it again before presenting anything.

A second hook checks at session start that the first one can still start at all, since a hook that fails to launch cannot report that it failed. HOOKS.md is where that layer's rules live.

The skills never run the corpus layer for you. They read it. They do not write content/ledger.sqlite, and they do not run python -m chitragupta.corpus sync. That command takes the write lock, and a first full-corpus parse can run for tens of minutes, so starting one is your decision rather than a side effect of asking for a draft.

On an empty ledger, the three citation-grounded genres -- survey-writer, thesis-chapter-writer, deep-research -- say so and stop. The two teaching genres, where citations are optional, say so and ask whether to continue uncited.

No skill runs the enrichment layer. They consume its output when a human has already built it. deep-research checks for content/chroma/ before reaching for embedding search; peer-reviewer reads content/docling/<citekey>.md if it exists. Both fall back to the lightweight default when it is not there.

Building that stack is your decision, not a side effect of asking for a draft. See layer 3, the enrichment layer below.

🧠 Layer 3: the enrichment layer¶

It extends the corpus layer, not the drafting one. That is worth saying plainly, because a layer this expensive sitting next to the generative one invites the opposite assumption. Nothing in it is generative and no skill runs it; every artefact it writes is a deeper reading of the same corpus, which is also why it takes the same write lock as sync. The drafting layer only ever reads what it produced.

chitragupta/enrich/__main__.py is the entry point, and it is the only one:

.venv-full/bin/python -m chitragupta.enrich --stages docling,embed
.venv-full/bin/python -m chitragupta.enrich --for-draft content/drafts/digital-twins.md

Stage	What it produces	`--for-draft`
`docling`	`content/docling/<doc>.md` plus a `<doc>.passages.json` sidecar of quotable, reading-ordered passages -- prose, tables with their page anchors, and (under `[enrich].docling_formulas`) decoded formulae -- and figure bitmaps under `[enrich].docling_images`	scoped
`embed`	`content/chroma/` -- sentence-transformers vectors per 200-word chunk	refused
`bertopic`	`content/topics.json` -- one cluster assignment per document	refused
`extract-keywords`	`content/keywords.toml` -- phrases the papers' own declared `Keywords:`/`Index Terms` lines carry, aggregated corpus-wide; a generated artifact, regenerated fresh each run	refused
`seed-topics`	`content/topic_seeds.json` -- every citekey matching one of the seed phrases -- the author's own list unioned with the extracted keywords -- many-to-many	refused
`converge`	`content/topic_set.json` -- `bertopic`'s emergent clusters and `seed-topics`' author-named ones, joined into one topic set	refused
`topic-graph`	`content/topic_graph.json` -- how the converged topics relate: shared-member edges, semantic edges, centroids and a merge tree (TOPIC-DISCOVERY.md)	refused

Seven stages, and no more than seven. A review report and a draft render are deliberately not among them, though both would be three-line wrappers around python -m chitragupta.review provenance and python -m chitragupta.draft render. They are conveniences rather than enrichment work.

Hosting either here would cost two things. It would make the enrichment layer import the review and drafting layers -- the one cycle the four-layer picture otherwise has none of. And because the lock wraps every stage, it would make a review aid and a draft render wait on a running sync. Called directly they need no venv at all, so the direct form is cheaper than the wrapper would be.

The default unit of work is the whole corpus. --for-draft narrows it to the papers one draft cites, and reaches docling only. embed and bertopic each write one whole-corpus artefact with no partial form, so they are refused rather than scoped. LADDERS.md has the reasoning, and CLI.md the flags.

Each stage probes its own prerequisites and reports ok, partial, skipped or error, so a missing dependency is a correct answer rather than a crash -- skipped is the one that carries it here (docling not installed, or a topic stage with nothing to work from); no stage in this layer shells out to a binary, so none of them reports missing-binary. No stage needs an LLM API key -- this repository intentionally has none. (An earlier revision had PaperQA2 and STORM stages that required ANTHROPIC_API_KEY or OPENAI_API_KEY; they were removed to keep it key-free. LLM-backed synthesis happens only in the drafting layer, through a Claude Code session.)

What the three build stages are for, and which one to build first, is in RETRIEVAL.md.

--stages is the only way to run them. chitragupta/enrich/docling_parse.py, embed_index.py and topic_model.py have no __main__ block, so python -m chitragupta.enrich.docling_parse imports the module, does nothing, and exits 0 -- a silent no-op, not an error. chitragupta/render_output/ is not among them at all: it has a CLI, needs no package from the enrich group, and belongs to the drafting layer -- which is why it lives in chitragupta/ rather than in the package.

A skill must not run it. A skill runs inline with the same Bash access as the session that invoked it, so it can shell out to chitragupta/enrich/__main__.py. It must not, which is what AGENTS.md and all seven SKILL.md files say.

Two reasons. This layer takes the same write lock as sync, so a skill invoking it can block or be blocked by the user's own run. And a first full-corpus Docling parse is measured in tens of minutes, which is not a cost a skill may incur on the user's behalf without being asked.

What a skill does do is read what this layer produced, and that is the only edge between the two. It checks the stack exists before using it -- content/chroma/ for embeddings, content/docling/ for passages -- and degrades to the lightweight default rather than erroring when it does not. Reading an artefact is not calling a layer.

🔍 Layer 4: the review layer¶

Ten aids behind one command, run over a finished draft -- or, in union's case, over a book assembled from finished drafts. What each one answers, what a report looks like, and how to read one is REVIEW.md -- this section is only the layer's boundary: where it sits, and what it may not do.

Three boundary facts, and each is load-bearing:

Nothing invokes them as part of producing a draft, with one amended exception: a genre skill runs verbatim scan on its own output before presenting. The rest are yours to run.
They take no lock. Read-only over the corpus, so they keep working during a sync, like chitragupta corpus ledger and retrieval. That is also why no enrichment stage wraps one: a --stages provenance would run a review aid while holding sync's write lock, making an advisory read-only report wait on a corpus rebuild for no reason.
None of them gates anything, and none may be promoted to one.

Advisory, not a gate, and named accordingly. Review rather than verification, because chitragupta.draft gate is the verification: it lives in the drafting layer and is that layer's only exit. A "verification layer" that excluded the gate would split the concept across two layers. The contrast is the point, not a competition.

Output lands in content/review/, mirroring the draft's path exactly as content/rendered/ and content/dossiers/ do, with chitragupta/review/__init__.py owning that contract. A draft under content/ but not under content/drafts/ writes flat, matching render_output._output_dir; a draft resolving outside content/ is refused, the same tier-1 rule the gate chain follows.

and can therefore be automatic and absolute. Seven of the nine answer questions of judgement -- the original six, plus support, which scores a claim against its cited source's passage but never calls the verdict itself -- where a machine verdict would be either wrong often enough to be ignored, or trusted more than it deserves. They give you the evidence and leave the call to you.

quotation is the seventh, and it is not one of those. Its question -- does this quoted span appear in the source it is attributed to? -- is binary, deterministic, and about as close to ground truth as anything outside the gate. It is the sharpest test this section has, so it is worked through rather than excepted, immediately below.

agenda is the eighth, and it asks no question of its own. It merges what the other eight already found into one ranked list, so each item it surfaces carries whichever answer -- judgement or binary -- produced it, unchanged. Merging does not turn a judgement into a fact: an agenda item inherited from provenance is still something to read and decide, not something agenda has itself concluded.

Which side a check falls on is decided by what it is measured against, not by how decidable its answer is. The two are easy to conflate, and that conflation is the one that would erode the gate.

The gate compares a citekey to the ledger: ground truth, built from the human's own .bib export and a real parse of a real PDF. No state of the world makes a citekey absent from it legitimately present, so an absolute verdict is available. A check compared against a recorded preference fails differently, even when its answer is just as mechanical. The preference is a line someone typed, so it can be wrong, stale, or deliberately overridden by a quoted title or a proper noun. Blocking on it refuses a correct draft on a bad target -- a failure the gate cannot have by construction.

quotation is the case where the temptation is strongest, because nothing about it is fuzzy. What it is measured against is the parse -- passages.py's ladder, at whichever rung has been reached today. An enrichment run that has not happened, a backend switched back to pdftotext, a re-parse of an edited PDF: each changes the answer while nothing changes about the paper. So "this span is absent" is a statement about the parse as much as about the source, which is exactly why the aid has a third outcome, unverifiable, for a source only pdftotext -layout could read -- there, column splicing means a perfectly correct quotation is not contiguous in the text, and calling it absent would assert a fabrication that is not there. A check that needs a third outcome is not a two-valued gate, however binary its first two look. Deterministic did not make it gateable; what it is measured against decided that, and would have decided it the same way had the answer been fuzzy.

Such a check reports and never blocks, whichever layer it lives in. What is enforced is invocation rather than conformance: a harness may guarantee that it runs and that its findings are seen, never that they were obeyed. Decidable is not the same as gateable, which is why DEVELOPER-AGENTS.md bars promoting any new check into a gate beside chitragupta/citation_gate.py outright, rather than leaving it to a judgement about how precise the check is.

scan is worth placing against the gate specifically, because the two are complements and both are deterministic. The gate proves every citekey is real; the scan reports what wording came along with them. Same corpus, same determinism, opposite halves of one question.

The second is a review aid anyway, and not because it is fuzzy. "This sentence resembles its source" has no single right answer the way ledger membership does. Its findings are what a later severity policy would be tuned against, not a verdict waiting to be switched on: SOUL.md commits to verbatim checks staying review aids. Note also what a clean run does not mean. scan runs three detection tiers, but the third needs an optional stack a checkout may not have, so a clean run can be incomplete rather than wrong. It names any tier that did not run. See docs/PLAGIARISM.md.

♻ Incremental by default, honest about failure¶

Two properties run through every stage, and both are load-bearing rather than incidental.

Nothing is recomputed without a reason. sync skips a PDF whose bytes have not changed. The embedding index skips a document whose text hashes the same as what is already stored. The topic model re-encodes only documents that moved, even though it must re-cluster all of them. The Docling stage fingerprints each PDF by size and modification time.

A second run over an unchanged corpus therefore costs close to nothing, which is what makes it safe to put sync on a schedule.

A stage that cannot run says so. Every stage probes for the binaries and packages it needs and reports missing-binary or skipped rather than crashing or silently succeeding. The parse path adds a quality guard on top: it warns when a backend starts fusing words together, which is invisible in a spot check but quietly wrecks keyword retrieval.

🔁 What is reproducible, and what is not¶

Run the pipeline twice over an unchanged bibliography and some artifacts come back byte-identical, some come back equivalent-but-not-identical, and one comes back genuinely different. This is the contract, artifact by artifact, so that "is this stable?" is answered here rather than inferred from four documents that each describe one corner of it.

The distinction matters most for quotation. A pipeline whose purpose is grounded citation cannot treat "the same words, arranged differently" as equivalent to "the same": a passage shown to a reviewer as evidence is a specific span of a specific source.

Artifact	Stable across a re-run on unchanged input?
`content/ledger.sqlite` rows	Yes, except `last_synced`, which is wall-clock and changes every run. `pdf_hash`, `status`, `parsed_path`, `failure_kind` and the bib columns are byte-stable
`pdf_size`, `pdf_mtime_ns`	Stable only while the file is untouched. A re-export producing byte-identical PDFs with fresh mtimes changes `pdf_mtime_ns` -- which is what the stat-before-hash skip reads, so those documents are re-hashed (not re-parsed: the hash still matches)
`content/parsed/<citekey>.txt`, `pdftotext`	Yes -- byte-identical, measured
`content/parsed/<citekey>.txt`, `docling`	No, at any GPU count -- 1 of 300 differed even on a single card, so confining the pool lowers the rate without removing it. Treat the percentages below as orders of magnitude, not figures. Every rate this document has ever carried came from a single pair of runs, and eight pairs at one fixed configuration have since ranged from 0 to 6 documents. All of them were measured at `[parser].ocr = false` and `[parser].formulas = false`; turn either on and none applies
`content/parsed/<citekey>.passages.json`	No, and this is the one that matters -- see below
`content/rendered/.md`, `.tex`	Yes -- byte-identical, measured
`content/rendered/.pdf`, `content/review/.pdf`	No. pdflatex embeds a creation timestamp and a trailer `/ID`; two renders of identical input differ. `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH`/`FORCE_SOURCE_DATE` does not make them identical
`content/review/*.md` -- the seven review reports, and a `.json` sibling beside each	Yes on unchanged input, deliberately: they carry no wall-clock line, because the reason to write one is that it diffs against the next revision's. The qualification is the same one the passage-sidecar row carries -- `citation_provenance` quotes passages, so a re-parse that moved a span moves the report with it
`content/topics.json`	Yes on unchanged input -- UMAP is seeded (`random_state=42`) and HDBSCAN is deterministic, verified as identical assignments over three runs on identical embeddings. But a topic id is not a stable identifier: clustering is whole-corpus, so adding or removing one document can renumber every other document's topic. Stable across a re-run, not across a corpus change -- two different questions
`content/retrieval_index.json`	A cache, not an output: term-frequency stats keyed by a per-item fingerprint, rebuilt for any document whose parsed text changed. Delete it and the next search rebuilds it
`content/overlap/`	A cache, not an output: `chitragupta/review/verbatim_check/`'s word n-gram fingerprints (per-document `docs/*.fpr` and the merged `index.bin`), keyed by `(pdf_hash, parsed-file stat)` per document. The `.fpr` files serve both modes; the merged `index.bin` is `scan`'s alone, built on the first `scan` and reloaded by every later one, so a re-scan over an unchanged corpus re-fingerprints nothing. Delete it and the next `overlap` or `scan` rebuilds whatever it needs
`content/chroma/`	The embedding store the `embed` stage writes -- persistent, not a cache, but incremental: a document whose text hashes the same is not re-embedded. Inherits whatever instability its input text has

🗄 The passage sidecar, specifically¶

Docling groups dense reference blocks into elements slightly differently under contention, and chitragupta/passages.py writes one passage record per element. So the instability does not stop at byte offsets.

Measured over 286 across-configuration document comparisons, 4 (1.4%) differed in their passage records and 3 (1.0%) in the passage text itself. The gap between those two is label changes on byte-identical text: real instability, but not a changed quotation.

Two text-level mechanisms were observed. A bibliography entry splits in two, leaving a reference truncated before its publisher and pages; or two entries merge into one. Same-configuration runs are not exempt either -- 2 of 572 comparisons (0.3%) changed a passage's text.

Neither mechanism is new, and the single-GPU case below is the first of them rather than a third. The clearest instance on record: two parses of qi_enabling_2021 hold the same characters bar one, because a reference to Zaccaria et al. is one list_item in the first run and two in the second, split after "Proceedings of ASME" and before "Turbo Expo 2018". A reviewer shown the first half alone is shown a citation truncated mid-venue. The boundary moved; no content appeared.

Two consequences worth stating plainly:

A previously quoted span is not guaranteed to survive a re-parse. Neither --reparse nor a fresh clone reproduces it reliably. If a quotation has been reviewed and matters, the reviewed text is the artifact -- not the offset it came from.
Serial parsing is the stable configuration. Every observed difference required a worker pool, and [parser].workers = 1 (the default) has not been observed to vary.
A pool confined to one GPU is not exact either, but what moves is bytes and labels rather than quotations. This table used to claim exactness, on the strength of three single-GPU arms that were each a single pair. Re-run at --repeat 5 on an idle host -- four pairs, 1,200 document comparisons, default parse settings -- it separates cleanly by level:

level	result
sidecar bytes	differ in all four pairs (6 to 10 documents each) -- `bbox` floats
span records	1 flip in 1,200
passage text	0 in 1,200

So "reproduces exactly" is false and should not be relied on, while the thing this pipeline actually shows a reviewer held still throughout. Only [parser].workers = 1 has been observed to give byte-exactness. - The one span flip is a label, and it lands on the boundary that decides whether a passage exists at all. The line "P. Singh et al." -- a running header -- came back as section_header in one run and text in another, byte-identical, same page. Both are in PASSAGE_LABELS, so the passage survived and no quotation changed. One step further, to page_header, is not in PASSAGE_LABELS, and that record would have vanished silently. Label instability is therefore not cosmetic even when the text is untouched: it is the classifier wavering one category away from deleting a quotable span. - On a contended card, the passage text does move. The same matrix run while another process competed for the same GPU put qi_enabling_2021 at 215 passages against 216 -- a real quotation change, from the bibliography-splitting mechanism above. Two runs is not enough to state a rate or to prove contention is the mechanism, but the contrast is the wrong way round to ignore: quiet gave 0 of 1,200, contended gave 1.

This is Docling's behaviour under load, not something this repository's parallelism introduced, and it cannot be switched off. Docling exposes no determinism setting. The only lever below it, torch's use_deterministic_algorithms, raises rather than degrades on an op with no deterministic implementation -- which would turn a cosmetic difference into a hard failure.

bench/RESULTS.md's "2026-08-07: does the quotable passage survive a re-parse?" has the measurement, the three mechanisms it separates, and its own statement of how little 286 comparisons can pin down. Its "2026-09-08 (B2d)" section has the quiet-host single-GPU measurement above and what eight pairs at one configuration do to every rate in this document. "2026-09-08 (B2c)" is the contended run the quotation change came from, and "2026-09-07 (B2b)" the record that prompted both -- a post-mortem on a parse configuration that was not held fixed.

🚫 What this architecture does not do¶

It does not fetch papers. There is no downloader, no metadata API client, no crawler. You curate the bibliography; the pipeline reads it.
It is not a citation manager. Zotero (or whatever you export from) remains the source of truth for citekeys and metadata. This repository parses that export and never writes back to it.
It does not verify claims. The gate guarantees a citekey is real, not that the sentence attached to it is right. That is what the review aids above are for, and they are aids -- reading the source remains your job.
It does not take an outline from you, except for a book. The book track has one -- you write spec.md, sign it, and each unit is generated from its slice (BOOKS.md). At single-draft scale there is no equivalent: all five genre skills manufacture their own retrieval queries from a one-line topic, and there is nowhere to hand them a structure, a per-section brief, or the queries you want run. deep-research writes section-to-citekey rows into sections.md at its Phase 4 and dispatches writers through dossier brief --section, so the mechanism exists at this scale -- but the rows are written by the model, and the other four genres never use them.
It does not notice that you edited the draft by hand. scope.md fingerprints the corpus; nothing fingerprints the draft. So after a manual edit, sections.md, evidence.md and math.md describe a document that no longer exists, and draft-reviser reads them as current. The book track does detect this for a unit (unit status reports stale: draft changed since accepted); the dossier has no counterpart.
It does not record who wrote a sentence, and will not. Prose you write into a draft yourself is measured by every review aid as though a skill produced it. That is deliberate rather than missing: a draft gets revised, the drafting layer legitimately rewrites what is in it, and an authorship marker would go stale while still looking authoritative -- the failure mode this pipeline already guards against by regenerating sections.md before a scan instead of trusting it. DESIGN.md has the argument and what is declared instead.

The first two are the subject of plans/outline-driven-drafting-and-manual-edits.md, which is a proposal and not built. The third is a settled decision.

SECURITY.md is the same list read from the security side, and it is longer: this pipeline does not sandbox a PDF, a TeX run or Pandoc, does not detect malware or sanitise a document, and does not protect you from anything that can already write to your project directory or your PATH. It also says what it does do -- the content-root containment checks, the archive-restore allowlist, the one-writer lock, and how the release path handles credentials -- and what stays the operator's responsibility.

🔧 What each capability requires¶

The pipeline probes for what it needs and reports what is missing, so a machine with only some of these still works. It reports the rest as unavailable rather than failing.

Capability	What it needs
Parse bib file, track citekeys and PDF paths	`bibtexparser` (venv, main Poetry group)
Extract PDF text	`pdftotext` (poppler-utils, `os-deps` stage) by default -- `docling` is an opt-in alternative, see CONFIG.md
Track parse status incrementally	stdlib `sqlite3`
BM25-ranked retrieval	stdlib only
Citation gate, References section, tex/pdf render	stdlib only, no venv (see below)
Prose conformance report (`chitragupta.draft style`)	stdlib only, plus `vale` on PATH (`os-deps` stage); absent, it reports missing-binary
Docling layout-aware parsing, embeddings/Chroma, BERTopic	venv, `enrich` Poetry group
Compiling generated `.tex` to PDF	`pandoc`, `pdflatex`, `latexmk` (`os-deps` stage)

🐍 Which interpreter, and why¶

Three tiers, on purpose. CLI.md lists which tier each command is in; this is the reason there are tiers at all.

Tier	Needs	Commands
1	bare `python`, stdlib only	`chitragupta.draft` (all eleven commands -- `style` additionally probes for the optional `vale` binary), `chitragupta.corpus ledger`, `chitragupta.review` (all seven aids)
2	venv + `bibtexparser`	`chitragupta.corpus sync`
3	venv + the `enrich` group	`python -m chitragupta.enrich`

The gate chain is deliberately in tier 1. chitragupta.draft gate -> chitragupta.draft references -> chitragupta.draft render runs on the system interpreter with no third-party import anywhere in it. The pipeline's one safety guarantee therefore cannot be blocked by a virtual environment that is broken, absent, or built for a different Python.

That matters more than it sounds. PEP 668 blocks pip install outside a venv on most current distributions, so "the venv is broken" is not always a five-second fix.

Tier 2 is one package. chitragupta.corpus sync needs bibtexparser because parsing BibTeX correctly -- nested braces, LaTeX escapes, multi-line values -- is not worth hand-rolling.

Directory membership is not the same axis, and has twice disagreed with it. render_output.py once sat in the enrichment layer's own directory while needing no package from that dependency group at all. It is the drafting layer's publish step, and it now lives in chitragupta/ beside the rest of that layer.

The last residue of the same confusion was verbatim_check.py, a review-layer command living in scripts/ -- the directory that then held the enrichment layer's entry point. It ran on bare python like the other two aids and was in no way heavier; only its path suggested otherwise. It is chitragupta/review/verbatim_check/ now, and scripts/ holds no layer entry point at all, leaving only genuine dev tooling behind.

Both moves were corrections of a label, not of a cost.

What the aid needs is pandoc and pdflatex, which are operating-system packages, probed at runtime and reported as missing-binary when absent. That axis -- which binaries a command shells out to -- is independent of which directory it lives in, and always was.

One entry point per layer, one level deep. The command surface is chitragupta <layer> <verb> -- chitragupta corpus sync, chitragupta draft gate, chitragupta review verbatim, chitragupta enrich --stages … -- with the equivalent module form python -m chitragupta.<layer> <verb> supported alongside it and used by the hooks and the genre skills (docs/PACKAGING.md says why both survive). A layer's package may nest as deep as its code wants; its command surface does not. What the rule forbids is reaching into a layer's package from the command line. A layer's submodules carry no __main__ block, so python -m chitragupta.a.b exits 0 with empty output, which for the gate is a silent pass on a draft nothing checked. chitragupta review verbatim scan is not that -- it is one layer, one aid, and one subcommand owned by that aid's own parser. The submodules inside chitragupta/enrich/ and chitragupta/review/ carry no __main__ block, so python -m chitragupta.enrich.docling_parse or python -m chitragupta.review.verbatim_check imports a module and exits 0 having done nothing. That is a trap, but a silent and harmless one, and it is the price of there being exactly one --help per layer.

The drafting layer's eleven commands carry the same trap without moving into a package. citation_gate.py, dossier.py, references.py, evidence_appendix.py, render_output.py, retrieval.py, style_check.py, spec.py, unit.py, registry.py and tldr.py stayed flat in chitragupta/ -- each a top-level module or package there, never gathered into a shared drafting subpackage the way enrich/'s stages are; chitragupta/draft.py beside them is what dropped their __main__ blocks and gave the layer its one front door. So python -m chitragupta.dossier, or any of the other ten, is the same silent no-op as the nested form above.

One module refuses instead: chitragupta/sync.py. Silence is the right price everywhere above because nobody schedules those commands. A no-op is seen by the person who typed it, in the second after they typed it.

Running chitragupta/sync.py as a module is the exception. It was the corpus layer's entry point until 5.2.0, and it is the one spelling here that plausibly sits in a crontab or a systemd unit, where "exited 0" is all anyone ever reads. It ran that way for a release, until a recorded issue found the cost in this repository's own bench/, where two measurement harnesses timed a sync that never happened and recorded the result -- wrong data, not missing data.

So that module carries a __main__ block that prints python -m chitragupta.corpus sync and exits 64. That is deliberately none of the four codes CLI.md publishes as sync's API, since a scheduler reads 2 there as "expected, do nothing". A follow-up change removed the old spelling from the documentation.

It is not a second way in: it parses no arguments, offers no --help, takes no lock and syncs nothing. There is still exactly one --help per layer, which is what this invariant is about.

tests/test_removed_command_scan.py keeps the old spelling out of the tree. It matches the invocation: the -m flag and the module together, in prose and in the quoted argument-list form that got past the original removal's hand sweep. It deliberately does not match the module path, which is legitimate and common -- chitragupta.sync is also the pinned logger name in every logs/pipeline.log line.

Why those two layers are flat while the other two are packages is a question about code cohesion, independent of the rule above: python -m chitragupta.draft <verb> and python -m chitragupta.corpus <verb> already satisfy it.

What makes chitragupta/enrich/ and chitragupta/review/ packages is that their submodules form clusters. topic_model imports embed_index imports corpus, and all seven review aids share chitragupta/review/__init__.py's output contract. The five drafting modules share little beyond chitragupta/config.py, so there is no cluster to name a package after.

The dependencies also run the wrong way for one. chitragupta/review/ imports four of the five, and chitragupta/enrich/__main__.py imports citation_gate. An chitragupta/draft/ package would therefore have the review and enrichment layers importing the drafting layer by name -- the shape of the cycle that keeping provenance and render out of the stage list prevents.

chitragupta.retrieval is additionally a documented Python API across the skills. Such a move would rename it for no gain, to a command surface that is already one level deep. The issue tracker has that argument in full.

The corpus layer is flat for the same reason: chitragupta/corpus.py beside sync.py and ledger.py, rather than a chitragupta/corpus/ package that would have rewritten every from chitragupta import ledger across chitragupta/, tests/ and bench/. Two things about it are its own.

It imports the verb it was given and not the other one. Everywhere else the dispatcher can import its whole layer at module scope, because every command in that layer sits on the same interpreter tier. Here they do not: sync needs bibtexparser (tier 2) and ledger needs only sqlite3 (tier 1). A top-level from chitragupta import sync would have taken ledger off the bare-python rung silently -- silently because it would still work on any host that has the venv, which is every host CI runs on. tests/test_corpus_entrypoint.py asserts on sys.modules rather than on the import lines, for that reason.

And it is a shared command surface, not a shared lock. sync holds the write lock for its whole run; ledger takes none, which is what keeps it readable during a sync -- the same property the review layer and retrieval rely on, described above. The front door itself takes nothing.

One thing that does not settle: chitragupta/ledger.py is not corpus-layer code that only sync touches. All four layers import it as a library -- sync, citation_gate, references and retrieval, enrich/corpus, review/citation_provenance -- so it is closer to shared infrastructure than to a command sync owns. What sits under chitragupta.corpus is its command, which is a claim about where a reader should look for it, not about who owns the module. The issue tracker holds the full argument.

The two-level form was tried once, as chitragupta.heavy.render_output, and was reverted with the directory that held it. tests/test_review_entrypoint.py, tests/test_draft_entrypoint.py and tests/test_corpus_entrypoint.py pin the rule in the code; tests/test_command_depth_scan.py pins it across these docs and the skills, so a nested invocation cannot reach a reader through prose either. None of it is left to someone comparing files by eye.

🪜 Ladders and tiers¶

Both words appear across these docs, and they are not the same thing. Summarised here; each one is treated in full, with what its bottom rung costs you, in docs/LADDERS.md -- except the detection tiers, whose full treatment is docs/PLAGIARISM-DESIGN.md.

A ladder is an ordered chain the code walks automatically: it tries the first rung, and falls to the next when that one can't answer. A rung is one option in such a chain.

Ladder	Rungs, best first	Where
Evidence passages	the enrichment layer's `.passages.json` -> the corpus layer's `.passages.json` -> parsed text split on page breaks -> a fresh `pdftotext` run	`chitragupta/passages.py`
Enrichment text source	`content/docling/<id>.md` -> the ledger's parsed `.txt` -> a fresh `pdftotext` run	`embed_index.get_text`
Accelerator	one CUDA device per worker -> that worker falls back to the CPU on an out-of-memory error	`chitragupta/pdf_text/`

A tier is a menu you choose from, with no automatic descent. Naming these apart matters because the failure modes differ: a ladder degrades quietly and you may not notice, while a tier fails loudly and tells you what is missing.

Tier set	Options	What happens if the one you picked is unavailable
Parser backend	`pdftotext`, `docling`	`sync` warns and skips parsing. It does not silently substitute the other backend
Interpreter	the three tiers above	`ModuleNotFoundError`
Render format	`md` (no binary), `tex`/`docx` (pandoc), `pdf` (pandoc + pdflatex)	reported as `missing-binary`. No format is silently downgraded to another
Detection	`exact` word-n-gram runs, a deterministic skip-gram tier, and an embedding tier (all three built; the second and third advisory-only)	the embedding tier needs the optional enrichment layer's `content/chroma/`, the Docling passage sidecars, a synced ledger and the draft's own dossier; without any of them it is unavailable and says which, rather than falling back to the exact tier and reporting less

One difference is worth stating, because it is the exception to the word tier as used above: the detection tiers are not mutually exclusive. The other three tier sets are a menu you pick exactly one option from. scan instead runs every detection tier that can run, unions the findings, and labels each with the tier that produced it. That is what a finding's tier field is for, and it currently takes three values: exact, skip-gram and embedding.

The practical consequence is the one every place that offers scan repeats. A tier that could not run says so by name, so a clean run means "nothing found by the tiers that ran", never "no borrowed wording". docs/PLAGIARISM-DESIGN.md has the three tiers and the literature behind them.

🔒 One writer at a time¶

sync and the enrichment layer take the same lock over content/ (content/pipeline.lock.db), because the unsafe overlap is any writer against any other writer, not just sync against sync. The second one to start exits 2 rather than interleaving, and the lock releases itself if its holder is killed.

Readers are never blocked: python -m chitragupta.corpus ledger, the citation gate, retrieval and the whole review layer all run happily while a sync is in progress. The review layer's exemption is deliberate and stated in its own section -- reviewing a finished draft is exactly the kind of work that should not have to wait for a corpus rebuild. DESIGN.md has the reasoning and the failure analysis.