# Full naming preview and recorded result

All eight source files are fictional UTF-8 workshop notes. Fields were checked by the author; no model extraction trial was run. The following is the recorded final-run copy A. Copy B has the same per-file names and hashes.

[Field evidence](/blog/assets/content-based-file-naming-packet/shared/field-evidence.csv) · [Rules](/blog/assets/content-based-file-naming-packet/en/naming-rules.md) · [Full plan](/blog/assets/content-based-file-naming-packet/shared/rename-plan.csv) · [Actual results](/blog/assets/content-based-file-naming-packet/shared/applied-results.csv)

## Identity before any operation

| ID | Original basename | Bytes | SHA-256 |
| --- | --- | ---: | --- |
| F01 | `Scan001.txt` | 230 | `8d2e044a86a513ffd46ba2b1565c26640a48cd4bbeb3b3a718d6476035d13540` |
| F02 | `IMG002.txt` | 243 | `e0aeb2976a3b8b1e60032b70a78fea19a5122a15f5936a691b8f0326c2f8b63d` |
| F03 | `Scan003.txt` | 197 | `ad714e16cf98bd51063f2f1f3664677eb9237039a16123877d8eb90742356384` |
| F04 | `Scan004.txt` | 258 | `10193a6144cdf0949ba82995919d8c9f07e7e718b98fbf139c508773102d2e52` |
| F05 | `IMG005.txt` | 237 | `fc04fe4f63cf64ba30be67f251eac3aa92b01a18f2d222ff88dcdd0fc5cb33d8` |
| F06 | `Scan006.txt` | 244 | `b8291ea4d8d1cd567123b853d82a22b2268e2de9dd0ab11b7bcd9b19da4fa7eb` |
| F07 | `IMG007.txt` | 229 | `7613be2e973a4a5311eb45848ad7e692a56a44875190f90213722e8abb31c51f` |
| F08 | `Scan008.txt` | 241 | `027a65d23a0ee454e61ff2f2037422e2534840c7dd7b2c738cf2a109e25a2429` |

## Complete authored wrong proposal and repaired approval

The wrong proposal is authored counterexample data, not observed model output. The actual helper rejected every wrong-plan row. It did not apply these names.

| ID | Wrong proposed name | Repaired approved name | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| F01 | `2026-04-03__amber__airflow__rev-a.txt` | `2026-04-03__amber__airflow__rev-a__f01.txt` | approved: All required fields manually verified |
| F02 | `2026-04-04__cobalt__latch-fit__rev-b.txt` | `2026-04-04__cobalt__latch-fit__rev-b__f02.txt` | approved: All required fields manually verified |
| F03 | `2026-10-22__birch__spacing__rev-a.txt` | None | blocked: Document-Date:missing |
| F04 | `2026-04-05__cedar__balance__rev-a.txt` | None | blocked: Document-Date:conflict |
| F05 | `2026-04-03__amber__airflow__rev-a.txt` | `2026-04-03__amber__airflow__rev-a__f05.txt` | approved: All required fields manually verified |
| F06 | `2026-04-07__dune__notes__rev-a.txt` | None | blocked: Subject:missing |
| F07 | `2026-04-08__elm__hinge__rev-c.txt` | `2026-04-08__elm__hinge__rev-c__f07.txt` | approved: All required fields manually verified |
| F08 | `04/05/2026__fir__alignment__rev-a.txt` | None | blocked: Document-Date:ambiguous |

F01 and F05 are different documents with different bytes even though their naming fields match. Adding their stable IDs makes distinct names without inventing document facts. F03’s date is absent; the wrong proposal supplies an unsupported 2026-10-22. F04 arbitrarily chooses the first conflicting date. F06 invents “notes” for an unreadable subject. F08 preserves an ambiguous slash date and also violates the basename-only rule. The repair keeps those four originals unchanged.

## Actual final-run copy A contents

| ID | Actual current basename | Outcome | Bytes unchanged / hash matched |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| F01 | `2026-04-03__amber__airflow__rev-a__f01.txt` | applied | Yes / yes |
| F02 | `2026-04-04__cobalt__latch-fit__rev-b__f02.txt` | applied | Yes / yes |
| F03 | `Scan003.txt` | blocked | Yes / yes |
| F04 | `Scan004.txt` | blocked | Yes / yes |
| F05 | `2026-04-03__amber__airflow__rev-a__f05.txt` | applied | Yes / yes |
| F06 | `Scan006.txt` | blocked | Yes / yes |
| F07 | `2026-04-08__elm__hinge__rev-c__f07.txt` | applied | Yes / yes |
| F08 | `Scan008.txt` | blocked | Yes / yes |

[renamed-copy.zip](/blog/assets/content-based-file-naming-packet/shared/renamed-copy.zip) contains exactly these eight files, captured after forward execution and before reversal. The byte-for-byte source mapping is in [applied-results.csv](/blog/assets/content-based-file-naming-packet/shared/applied-results.csv). The four blocked rows are retained, not omitted, deleted or counted as successful renames.

The separate reverse-conflict exercise restored only F02, F05 and F07; F01 stayed under its renamed basename because a later file occupied `Scan001.txt`. The later file was preserved. That case is not a fully reversed batch.

[Reversal plan](/blog/assets/content-based-file-naming-packet/shared/reversal-plan.csv) · [All conflict observations](/blog/assets/content-based-file-naming-packet/shared/conflicts.csv) · [Recorded exercise and its limits](/blog/content-based-file-naming-packet/#reproduce-the-recorded-exercise-and-understand-its-limits)