fsprojects/FSharp.Data.Adaptive

Executive summary

fsprojects/FSharp.Data.Adaptive scores 53 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while three of its five lenses score higher still: Architecture at 98 rated Exemplary, Security and Compliance at 74 rated Adequate, and Code Health at 70 rated Adequate.

The score is lower than those three because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 41 and is rated Weak. The project has no observability data and no security or performance tooling, so its Observability and Security & performance tooling dimensions score 0 out of 10, and until those reach 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. Resolving the three outdated dependencies in Dependency Hygiene and removing the redundant comment in Comment Value are the first actions, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 53 to about 63.

Twelve findings are critical: eleven mutable action tags in Static Analysis (SAST) and one high secret in Secrets (history), which means security is not strong.

Watchdog couldn't measure Incompleteness & stubs because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, and Runtime accessibility because the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time. The product code is 23,669 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €33,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 70 Adequate, capped by Nullable reference types Architecture 98 ★ Exemplary Maturity 52 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 41 Weak, capped by Observability and Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 74 Adequate, capped by Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Production Readiness 41 · counts for 47%Maturity 52 · counts for 26%Code Health 70 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 74 · counts for 8%Architecture 98 · counts for 4%

If Production Readiness rose from 41 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 53 to about 63.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Business logic 1%Supporting code 1%Tests 98%

New since the last survey: 4 findings

These 4 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026.

Secrets (history) · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and is gone from this one.

Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED

Rebuild cost: about €33,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€11,000 to €55,000, for 183 to 581 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 53. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 23,669 lines of product code
Comment lines	The estimate prices 23,652 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 23,669 lines but aren't priced as work.

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Resolve the 3 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · Comment Value

Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag.

Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.

Raises the score by about 7 points · Medium effort · Observability

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €33,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 41 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 3 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 6 points for low effort, because it clears the 3 Dependency Hygiene findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost

Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 7.3 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 2% to 5% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 190 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 771 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 0 to 0.3 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.

How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.

Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history

What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

101 modules, with 90 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 2 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 61 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.HashImplementation	2 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.MapExtImplementation	3 FSharp.Data.Traceable	4 FSharp.Data.Adaptive	5 CSharp.Data.Adaptive	13 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AValModule	27 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Reference
1 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.HashImplementation
2 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.MapExtImplementation
3 FSharp.Data.Traceable				35
4 FSharp.Data.Adaptive	7	4	10
5 CSharp.Data.Adaptive			5	55
6 CSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdaptiveListHelpers				1
7 CSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdaptiveMapHelpers				1
8 CSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdaptiveSetHelpers				1
9 CSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdaptiveValueHelpers				1
10 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AListModule				5
11 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AMapModule				6
12 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.ASetModule				4
13 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AValModule				7
14 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdadptiveObjectExtensions				1
15 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdaptiveIndexListHelpers				3
16 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdaptiveReduction				1
17 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CallbackExtensions				2
18 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions				2
19 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions.AListModule				5
20 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions.AMapModule				4
21 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions.ASetModule				4
22 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions.AVal				1
23 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions.Array				1
24 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions.BooleanOperators			2	4
25 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions.HashMap				2
26 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.CollectionExtensions.Readers			15	41
27 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Reference				18
28 FSharp.Data.Traceable.CountingHashSetModule			3	3
29 FSharp.Data.Traceable.HashMap			2	4
30 FSharp.Data.Traceable.HashMapDelta			2	2
31 FSharp.Data.Traceable.HashSet			2	4
32 FSharp.Data.Traceable.HashSetDelta			2	2
33 FSharp.Data.Traceable.History.Readers			9	6
34 FSharp.Data.Traceable.IndexList			2	4
35 FSharp.Data.Traceable.IndexListDelta			2	2
36 CSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdaptiveObjectExtensionHelpers				1	1
37 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.AdaptiveFileSystemUtilities			1	3		1
38 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Reference.AList				1			2
39 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Reference.AMap				1			3
40 FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Reference.ASet				1			2

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 70% · Adequate · gated by X5 ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 7.2 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 7.7 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 10.0 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 9.8 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0

The Bad

D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 6.2 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 6.1

The Ugly

X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.6 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 7.8 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 52% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 8.9 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 7.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0

The Ugly

D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 4.5 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 41% · Weak · gated by P2, P3 ·

The Good

D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 7.8 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

The Ugly

P2 · Repo Observability 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D32, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 9.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

The Ugly

D32 · .NET / C# Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) 3.9 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	11	High / Critical
A01:2025 — Broken Access Control	9	Medium
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	8	Medium
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, implement a diagnostic log file accessible via a debug flag to capture error details that are currently lost, and resolve the three outdated dependency findings. Next, document significant design decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve architectural context, and clean up redundant comments in the main program file. Finally, establish a draft release process to allow manual intervention and prevent bad builds from reaching users.

Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 3 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+6.5 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs.	+4.7 pts	Low	Comment Value
Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag. Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.	+6.8 pts	Medium	Observability
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+6.1 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with CSharpInterop.csproj.	+2.6 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+2.5 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+3.3 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+2.8 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 36 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 8% slop · 64% mixed · 28% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.3	Mixed	Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): Medium: REDACTED
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs	6.3	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs	6.5	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: SetNode.union (cyclomatic 20)
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff (cyclomatic 31)
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: IndexListModule.alterAt (cyclomatic 19)
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs	7.0	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs	7.0	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update (cyclomatic 16)
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: DeltaOperationList.ofArrayMyers (cyclomatic 17)
src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs	7.0	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: AdaptiveIndexList
src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (18 lines × 2)
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs	7.1	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: ListSetMapReader`2.Compute (cognitive 22)
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs	7.1	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs	7.2	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: CountingHashSet`1
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexListDelta.fs	7.4	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: IndexListDeltaEnumerator`1.MoveNext (cognitive 30)
src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 12

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 337

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 51

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 3

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 62 of 66 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 1.0 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 66 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D32D34D35D36D39D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX5GD1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 349 of 400 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16ac0-55ec-7245-b130-0735cb4f09db.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

D12 Dependency Hygiene — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares npm dependencies as well as NuGet ones — manifest: src/Demo/Fable/package.json — and the counts on this row cover the NuGet side ONLY. This dimension reads dependency currency from `<PackageReference>` elements via `dotnet list package`; it does not read it, so the npm packages declared there were not checked for newer, deprecated or unmaintained releases. Their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's ecosystem coverage — not a finding that those dependencies are current.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Cannot open project 'src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/FSharp.Data.Adaptive.fsproj' because the file extension '.fsproj' is not associated with a language.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 0 deducted marker(s) and the 0.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (23,477 lines, 99% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan. 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) (npm,osv) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; nuget was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that nuget is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DevServer (start). the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

33 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff at 31.

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff (cyclomatic 31)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2281

MapExtImplementation.replaceRange (cyclomatic 30)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1888

MapExtImplementation.choose2Helper (cyclomatic 29)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2502

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingleEff (cyclomatic 27)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2371

MapExtImplementation.computeDelta (cyclomatic 26)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1984

+ 28 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 33 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff (cyclomatic 31), MapExtImplementation.replaceRange (cyclomatic 30), MapExtImplementation.choose2Helper (cyclomatic 29). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 33 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 7.2 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

63 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update at 72.

IndexList`1.GetSlice (cognitive 17) · ×2src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:93

ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update (cognitive 72)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:157

IndexList.computeDeltaToArray (cognitive 67)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:295

IndexList.computeDeltaToArrayAndGetResult (cognitive 67)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:375

MapExtImplementation.replaceRange (cognitive 60)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1888

+ 57 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 3 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update (cognitive 72), IndexList.computeDeltaToArray (cognitive 67), IndexList.computeDeltaToArrayAndGetResult (cognitive 67). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 6.2 to about 6.4/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

23 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: MapExt`2 · ×9src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2867

FileTooLong: Datastructures/HashCollections.fs · ×7src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs

TooManyFunctions: MapExt · ×7src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:3757

What to do

Resolve the 9 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with HashCollections.fs (2), MapExt.fs, ASet.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with HashCollections.fs, MapExt.fs, AdaptiveIndexList.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with HashCollections.fs (4), MapExt.fs (2), CountingHashSet.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

199 duplicated block group(s) detected. 13 of the 199 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×18src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:79

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×16src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:64

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×14src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/HashSet.fs:9

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×14src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:510

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×13src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/ChangeableIndexList.fs:147

+ 71 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 18 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with HashCollections.fs (6), AList.fs (5), MapExt.fs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
Resolve the 16 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with MapExt.fs (9), AdaptiveHashSet.fs (2), HashCollections.fs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 14 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with MapExt.fs (3), AdaptiveHashMap.fs (2), HashCollections.fs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.6 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 33 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: History`2 (LCOM4 5)src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:128

What to do

Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with History.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

33 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages. NuGet only — this repository also declares npm dependencies, which are not read for currency here.

Deprecated: Microsoft.DotNet.InternalAbstractions

Outdated: FSharp.Core · ×3

Outdated: Aardvark.Build · ×30

What to do

Resolve the 3 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 62 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 1 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 61 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs. Counted over 37 of the 49 production source files in this repository: 7 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 5 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 192 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (99% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The repository's root README is a well-written overview of the project (Purpose, an outline of what it provides, and its motivation) plus a badge section. It states what the project does clearly but contains no installation, build, or usage instructions for readers outside the repo; those belong to the root README. The document ends at a clipped marker mid-overview, so any unshown sections in the outline are not flagged as missing.

Low XML-doc coverage: CSharpInteropsrc/Demo/CSharpInterop/CSharpInterop.csproj

What to do

Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with CSharpInterop.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 29 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment ValueWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 valuable / 1 redundant across 4 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentsrc/Demo/CSharpInterop/Program.cs:119

What to do

Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

96 % of calls cross a namespace and 2 % go through an interface, but 57 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

Scattered collaborators

What to do

Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)9.0 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Adequategated by 11 critical findings○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 finding(s): 0 critical, 11 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 11 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens.

REDACTED

What to do

No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 11 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 2 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm,osv). Partial dependency scan: 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm,osv), and the findings above are real and complete for them. nuget was not scanned (nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)3.9 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.

Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR LEAK scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset: personal data crossing a boundary it should not — reaching a log/console sink, a URL or query string, or unprotected browser storage. Matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. A clean sweep is unscored rather than an unearned 10, and is a statement about the leak paths checked only — this dimension does not inventory the personal data a repository holds (the personal-data map and the C1-C5 compliance cards do that), so it never reports that a repository has no personal-data surface. Reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive over the leak paths, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

9 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 9 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 9 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED (9). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 42 of the 49 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D39 · IL Efficiency9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

45 of 4548 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 45 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetsrc/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2972

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 10 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No logging or diagnostics emission found. This repository ships a binary its users launch rather than a service you operate, so there is no operator to page — but when a run fails on a user's machine, neither they nor you have anything to read.

What to do

Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: a log file under the platform's per-user data directory, switchable with a `--verbose`/`--debug` flag. Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 3055 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

0/1 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	70%	Adequate — gated by X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	98%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Maturity	52%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	41%	Weak — gated by P2, P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	74%	Adequate — gated by D32, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 3 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 51 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D10 Test Quality — ~10409 lines of test source are present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — single shared-core project — no cross-context coupling to assess
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (3 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async method does work a token could cancel
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 12 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 337 finding(s)

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×18

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:79 — src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:79-85 | src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/ASet.fs:94-100 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:79` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:87 — src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:87-93 | src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/ASet.fs:102-108 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:87` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:144 — src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:144-150 | src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/ASet.fs:165-171 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:144` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:153 — src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:153-159 | src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/ASet.fs:174-180 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:153` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:266 — src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:266-272 | src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:274-280 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:186 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:186-192 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:195-201 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:204 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:204-210 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:276-282 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:697 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:697-703 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:722-728 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1317 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1317-1323 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2756-2762 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2404 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2404-2410 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2427-2433 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2934 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2934-2940 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2945-2951 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3586 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3586-3592 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3594-3600 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3965 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3965-3971 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3973-3979 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:448 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:448-454 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:466-472 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:346 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:346-352 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:405-411 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:821 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:821-827 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:903-909 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:833 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:833-839 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:915-921 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:218 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:218-224 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fsi:309-315 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×16

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:64 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:64-69 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:150-155 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:43 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:43-49 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:43-48 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:43` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:49 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:49-54 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:35-40 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1463 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1463-1468 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:1556-1561 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1287 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1287-1292 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1396-1401 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1287` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1446 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1446-1451 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2582-2587 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1446` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:495 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:495-500 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:507-512 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:543 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:543-548 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:566-571 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:543` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:767 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:767-772 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2187-2192 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:868 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:868-873 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:952-957 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:876 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:876-881 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:960-965 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:884 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:884-889 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:968-973 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:892 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:892-897 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:976-981 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1081 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1081-1086 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1110-1115 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2299 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2299-2304 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2308-2314 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:219 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:219-224 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:360-365 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×14

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/HashSet.fs:9 — src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/HashSet.fs:9-18 | src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/IndexList.fs:8-17 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/HashSet.fs:7` calls `CompiledName` and `src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/IndexList.fs:5` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:838 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:838-847 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:751-760 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1089 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1089-1098 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1133-1142 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:978 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:978-987 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1043-1052 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:978` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:113 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:113-122 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:177-186 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1703 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1703-1713 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2921-2930 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:4247 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:4247-4256 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:4257-4266 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:4247` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:509 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:509-518 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:533-542 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:987 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:987-996 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:997-1006 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:119 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:119-128 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:360-369 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1091 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1091-1100 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1120-1129 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1440 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1440-1449 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1498-1507 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:304 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:304-313 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:328-337 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:304` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:98 — REDACTED:98-107 | REDACTED:115-124 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×14

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:510 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:510-514 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:518-522 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:510` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:59 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:59-63 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fsi:68-72 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1341 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1341-1345 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1502-1506 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1395 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1395-1399 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2581-2585 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1445 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1445-1449 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1557-1562 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2456 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2456-2460 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2563-2567 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2456` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1102 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1102-1106 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1117-1121 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1313 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1313-1317 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1346-1350 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1091 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1091-1095 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1105-1110 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1426 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1426-1430 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1484-1488 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1542 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1542-1546 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1559-1563 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:305 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:305-309 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:387-391 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:246 — src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:246-250 | src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:371-375 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Demo/Fable/Program.fs:79 — src/Demo/Fable/Program.fs:79-83 | src/Demo/Fable/Program.fs:84-88 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×13

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/ChangeableIndexList.fs:147 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/ChangeableIndexList.fs:147-154 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/ChangeableIndexList.fs:162-169 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1055 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1055-1062 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2362-2369 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1332 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1332-1339 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1493-1500 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1366 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1366-1373 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1527-1534 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1366` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1673 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1673-1681 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2893-2900 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2418 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2418-2425 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2441-2448 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2649 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2649-2656 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2715-2722 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:220 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:220-227 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:233-240 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:769 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:769-776 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:805-812 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:769` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:844 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:844-851 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:926-933 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:856 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:856-863 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:938-945 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1297 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1297-1304 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1325-1332 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1297` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2347 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2347-2355 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2486-2493 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×12

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:99 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:99-109 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:256-266 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:196 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:196-206 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:186-196 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:280 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:280-290 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:279-289 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:280` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:944 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:944-954 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:999-1009 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1230 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1230-1240 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1244-1254 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1623 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1623-1633 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1663-1673 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1641 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1641-1651 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1679-1689 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2844 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2844-2854 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2883-2893 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2863 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2863-2873 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2898-2908 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1577 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1577-1587 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1609-1619 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2028 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2028-2038 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2053-2063 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:290 — src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:290-300 | src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:335-345 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:290` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×10

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:9 — src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:9-17 | src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/ASet.fs:9-17 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1652 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1652-1660 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:1799-1807 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:678 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:678-686 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:720-728 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Core/AdaptiveObject.fs:231 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Core/AdaptiveObject.fs:231-239 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Core/Transaction.fs:58-67 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:59 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:59-67 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:103-111 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1235 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1235-1243 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1279-1287 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1235` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:557 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:557-565 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:580-588 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2143 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2143-2151 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2567-2575 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2153 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2153-2162 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2577-2585 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Demo/Fable/Program.fs:10 — src/Demo/Fable/Program.fs:10-18 | src/Demo/Fable/Program.fs:22-30 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Demo/Fable/Program.fs:10` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×9

TooManyMethods: MapExt`2 src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2867 — TooManyMethods — 132 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 102 over it, 4.40× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FSharpHashSet`1 src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3255 — TooManyMethods — 73 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 43 over it, 2.43× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: AdaptiveHashSet src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/ASet.fs:29 — TooManyMethods — 68 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 38 over it, 2.27× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FSharpHashMap`2 src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3682 — TooManyMethods — 66 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 36 over it, 2.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: IndexList`1 src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:40 — TooManyMethods — 65 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 35 over it, 2.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: AdaptiveIndexList src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AList.fs:29 — TooManyMethods — 64 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 34 over it, 2.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: AdaptiveHashMap src/CSharp.Data.Adaptive/AMap.fs:29 — TooManyMethods — 50 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 20 over it, 1.67× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: CountingHashSet`1 src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:30 — TooManyMethods — 40 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ChangeableIndexList`1 src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/ChangeableIndexList.fs:8 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×7

FileTooLong: Datastructures/HashCollections.fs src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs — FileTooLong — 3649 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 3149 over it, 7.30× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Datastructures/MapExt.fs src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs — FileTooLong — 3206 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2706 over it, 6.41× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs — FileTooLong — 1367 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 78 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 867 over it, 2.73× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs — FileTooLong — 1209 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 54 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 709 over it, 2.42× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs — FileTooLong — 1195 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 57 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 695 over it, 2.39× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Datastructures/IndexList.fs src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs — FileTooLong — 1026 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 106 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 526 over it, 2.05× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs — FileTooLong — 639 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 139 over it, 1.28× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFunctions · ×7

TooManyFunctions: MapExt src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:3757 — TooManyFunctions — 97 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 67 over it, 3.23× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: MapExtImplementation src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:7 — TooManyFunctions — 86 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 56 over it, 2.87× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: HashMapModule src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:4285 — TooManyFunctions — 55 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 25 over it, 1.83× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: MapNode src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1882 — TooManyFunctions — 40 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: HashSetModule src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:4115 — TooManyFunctions — 40 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: CountingHashSetModule src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:398 — TooManyFunctions — 37 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 7 over it, 1.23× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: MapLinked src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:414 — TooManyFunctions — 35 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:535 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:535-546 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:550-561 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:535` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:227 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:227-238 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:256-267 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:391 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:391-402 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:801-812 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:155 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:155-167 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:203-214 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:448 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:448-459 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:481-492 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:448` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:493` calls `Invoke` and `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:460` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:562 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:562-576 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:580-594 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:562` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1280 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1280-1294 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1308-1322 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2752 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2752-2766 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2834-2848 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2752` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:63 — src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:63-77 | src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:151-165 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:63` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:227 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:227-243 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:430-446 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1610 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1610-1626 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:1845-1861 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:212 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:212-229 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:244-260 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:26 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:26-41 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:78-93 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/ChangeableHashMap.fs:50 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/ChangeableHashMap.fs:50-65 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/ChangeableIndexList.fs:38-53 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/ChangeableHashMap.fs:50` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1745 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1745-1760 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2969-2984 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:553 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:553-566 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:572-585 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:598 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:598-611 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:854-867 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:598` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1913 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1913-1926 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1954-1967 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1913` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:518 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:518-531 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:536-548 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:518` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2271 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2271-2283 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2360-2373 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:276 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:276-288 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/ShallowEquality.fs:324-337 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:823 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:823-835 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:736-748 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2473 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2473-2485 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2514-2526 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2492 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2492-2504 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2531-2543 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×3

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2649 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2649-2655 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2715-2721 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2771-2777 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3229 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3229-3235 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2756-2762 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2838-2844 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3916 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3916-3922 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3924-3930 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3932-3938 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:151 — src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:151-160 | src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:168-176 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:276 — src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:276-285 | src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:322-330 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:559 — src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:559-567 | src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:606-615 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IndexList`1.GetSlice (cognitive 17) · ×2

IndexList`1.GetSlice (cognitive 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:93 — IndexList`1.GetSlice has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (IndexList`1.GetSlice) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
IndexList`1.GetSlice (cognitive 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:113 — IndexList`1.GetSlice has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (IndexList`1.GetSlice) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23–24 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (23–24 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:720 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:720-743 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:805-827 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:720` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (23–24 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1814 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1814-1836 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3038-3061 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:173 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:173-194 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:163-184 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:172-193 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:173` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:210 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:210-231 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:200-221 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:209-230 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:210` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1771 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1771-1788 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2995-3012 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:305 — src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:305-322 | src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:350-367 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:305` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) · ×2

Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:897 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:897-908 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1915-1926 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1956-1967 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1987-1998 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1782 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1782-1793 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1830-1841 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3006-3017 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3055-3066 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:235 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:235-246 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:354-365 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:438-449 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:503 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:503-514 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:468-479 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:469-480 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:503` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:457 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:457-468 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:474-483 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:474` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:12 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:12-21 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:12-23 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:29` calls `CompilationRepresentation` and `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:27` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1100 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1100-1109 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1145-1155 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2122 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2122-2132 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2547-2556 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2122` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:261 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:261-270 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:251-261 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:260-269 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:261` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexListDelta.fs:150 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexListDelta.fs:150-159 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2743-2752 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:3726-3735 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:719 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:719-727 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2707-2715 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:3690-3698 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2269 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2269-2277 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2345-2353 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2358-2366 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:280 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:280-288 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:291-297 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Utilities/PriorityQueue.fs:178 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Utilities/PriorityQueue.fs:178-186 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Utilities/PriorityQueue.fs:239-245 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1485 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1485-1492 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1470-1475 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:1563-1570 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2060 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2060-2065 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2080-2085 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2100-2105 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2060` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:566 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:566-570 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1296-1300 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1324-1328 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:566` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2658 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2658-2662 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2724-2728 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2780-2784 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff (cyclomatic 31) · ×1

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff (cyclomatic 31) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2281 — ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapExtImplementation.replaceRange (cyclomatic 30) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.replaceRange (cyclomatic 30) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1888 — MapExtImplementation.replaceRange has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapExtImplementation.choose2Helper (cyclomatic 29) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.choose2Helper (cyclomatic 29) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2502 — MapExtImplementation.choose2Helper has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingleEff (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingleEff (cyclomatic 27) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2371 — ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingleEff has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapExtImplementation.computeDelta (cyclomatic 26) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.computeDelta (cyclomatic 26) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1984 — MapExtImplementation.computeDelta has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapExtImplementation.sliceEx (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.sliceEx (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1670 — MapExtImplementation.sliceEx has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.union (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SetNode.union (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1316 — SetNode.union has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, SetNode.computeDelta, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.intersect (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SetNode.intersect (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1371 — SetNode.intersect has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.xor (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SetNode.xor (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1477 — SetNode.xor has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.difference, SetNode.computeDelta, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.difference (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SetNode.difference (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1532 — SetNode.difference has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.computeDelta, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.computeDelta (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SetNode.computeDelta (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1589 — SetNode.computeDelta has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.applyDelta (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SetNode.applyDelta (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1742 — SetNode.applyDelta has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapNode.applyDelta) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.unionWithV (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

MapNode.unionWithV (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2632 — MapNode.unionWithV has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.unionWith (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

MapNode.unionWith (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2698 — MapNode.unionWith has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.union (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

MapNode.union (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2755 — MapNode.union has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.computeDelta (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

MapNode.computeDelta (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2810 — MapNode.computeDelta has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.applyDelta (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

MapNode.applyDelta (cyclomatic 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2966 — MapNode.applyDelta has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (SetNode.applyDelta) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · IndexListModule.alterAt (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

IndexListModule.alterAt (cyclomatic 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:944 — IndexListModule.alterAt has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapExtImplementation.changeWithNeighbours (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.changeWithNeighbours (cyclomatic 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1821 — MapExtImplementation.changeWithNeighbours has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonState (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonState (cyclomatic 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2099 — ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonState has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.overlaps (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

SetNode.overlaps (cyclomatic 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1266 — SetNode.overlaps has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.intersectionCount (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

SetNode.intersectionCount (cyclomatic 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1425 — SetNode.intersectionCount has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.choose2V (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

MapNode.choose2V (cyclomatic 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2450 — MapNode.choose2V has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.intersect (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

MapNode.intersect (cyclomatic 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2557 — MapNode.intersect has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DeltaOperationList.ofArrayMyers (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

DeltaOperationList.ofArrayMyers (cyclomatic 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:73 — DeltaOperationList.ofArrayMyers has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapExtImplementation.changeV (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.changeV (cyclomatic 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:747 — MapExtImplementation.changeV has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (MapExtImplementation.change, ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapExtImplementation.change (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.change (cyclomatic 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:783 — MapExtImplementation.change has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (MapExtImplementation.changeV, ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle (cyclomatic 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2161 — ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (MapExtImplementation.changeV, MapExtImplementation.change) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update (cyclomatic 16) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:157 — ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapExtImplementation.choose2 (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.choose2 (cyclomatic 16) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2584 — MapExtImplementation.choose2 has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SetNode.subset (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

SetNode.subset (cyclomatic 16) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1217 — SetNode.subset has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.alterV (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

MapNode.alterV (cyclomatic 16) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1890 — MapNode.alterV has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapNode.alter) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MapNode.alter (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

MapNode.alter (cyclomatic 16) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1931 — MapNode.alter has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapNode.alterV) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×1

Deprecated: Microsoft.DotNet.InternalAbstractions — Microsoft.DotNet.InternalAbstractions 1.0.0 — Other,Legacy

D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×1

Low XML-doc coverage: CSharpInterop src/Demo/CSharpInterop/CSharpInterop.csproj — CSharpInterop: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/12).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update (cognitive 72) · ×1

ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update (cognitive 72) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:157 — ChangeableModelListGeneric`4.Update has cognitive complexity 72 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (44 pts), loops 5 (24 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 52). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IndexList.computeDeltaToArray (cognitive 67) · ×1

IndexList.computeDeltaToArray (cognitive 67) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:295 — IndexList.computeDeltaToArray has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (39 pts), loops 5 (24 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 48). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (IndexList.computeDeltaToArrayAndGetResult) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IndexList.computeDeltaToArrayAndGetResult (cognitive 67) · ×1

IndexList.computeDeltaToArrayAndGetResult (cognitive 67) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:375 — IndexList.computeDeltaToArrayAndGetResult has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (39 pts), loops 5 (24 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 48). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (IndexList.computeDeltaToArray) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.replaceRange (cognitive 60) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.replaceRange (cognitive 60) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1888 — MapExtImplementation.replaceRange has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 9 (33 pts), if/else 15 (25 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 34). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WeakOutputSet.Remove (cognitive 47) · ×1

WeakOutputSet.Remove (cognitive 47) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Core/Core.fs:335 — WeakOutputSet.Remove has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (42 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 28). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.computeDelta (cognitive 47) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.computeDelta (cognitive 47) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1984 — MapExtImplementation.computeDelta has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (30 pts), match/switch 5 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.choose2Helper (cognitive 47) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.choose2Helper (cognitive 47) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2502 — MapExtImplementation.choose2Helper has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 11 (36 pts), if/else 9 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 27). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff (cognitive 47) · ×1

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff (cognitive 47) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2281 — ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonStateEff has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 12 (36 pts), if/else 9 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 26). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.sliceEx (cognitive 45) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.sliceEx (cognitive 45) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1670 — MapExtImplementation.sliceEx has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (44 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingleEff (cognitive 39) · ×1

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingleEff (cognitive 39) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2371 — ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingleEff has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (28 pts), if/else 9 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IndexListEnumerator`1.Collect (cognitive 38) · ×1

IndexListEnumerator`1.Collect (cognitive 38) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:682 — IndexListEnumerator`1.Collect has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (37 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.applyDelta (cognitive 38) · ×1

SetNode.applyDelta (cognitive 38) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1742 — SetNode.applyDelta has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (27 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapNode.applyDelta) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.applyDelta (cognitive 38) · ×1

MapNode.applyDelta (cognitive 38) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2966 — MapNode.applyDelta has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (27 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (SetNode.applyDelta) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Transaction.Commit (cognitive 36) · ×1

Transaction.Commit (cognitive 36) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Core/Transaction.fs:164 — Transaction.Commit has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (9 pts), error handling 1 (5 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.alter (cognitive 34) · ×1

SetNode.alter (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:872 — SetNode.alter has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (32 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.union (cognitive 34) · ×1

SetNode.union (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1316 — SetNode.union has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, SetNode.computeDelta, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.intersect (cognitive 34) · ×1

SetNode.intersect (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1371 — SetNode.intersect has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.xor (cognitive 34) · ×1

SetNode.xor (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1477 — SetNode.xor has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.difference, SetNode.computeDelta, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.difference (cognitive 34) · ×1

SetNode.difference (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1532 — SetNode.difference has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.computeDelta, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.computeDelta (cognitive 34) · ×1

SetNode.computeDelta (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1589 — SetNode.computeDelta has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.unionWithV (cognitive 34) · ×1

MapNode.unionWithV (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2632 — MapNode.unionWithV has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.unionWith (cognitive 34) · ×1

MapNode.unionWith (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2698 — MapNode.unionWith has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.union (cognitive 34) · ×1

MapNode.union (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2755 — MapNode.union has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.computeDelta (cognitive 34) · ×1

MapNode.computeDelta (cognitive 34) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2810 — MapNode.computeDelta has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (23 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 7 other methods here (SetNode.union, SetNode.xor, SetNode.difference, …) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 8 times rather than 8 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 7 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 8 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IndexListModule.alterAt (cognitive 33) · ×1

IndexListModule.alterAt (cognitive 33) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:944 — IndexListModule.alterAt has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (20 pts), if/else 6 (12 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.changeWithNeighbours (cognitive 33) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.changeWithNeighbours (cognitive 33) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1821 — MapExtImplementation.changeWithNeighbours has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), match/switch 5 (14 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.choose2V (cognitive 33) · ×1

MapNode.choose2V (cognitive 33) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2450 — MapNode.choose2V has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.intersect (cognitive 33) · ×1

MapNode.intersect (cognitive 33) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2557 — MapNode.intersect has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (21 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.choose2 (cognitive 32) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.choose2 (cognitive 32) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2584 — MapExtImplementation.choose2 has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), match/switch 4 (16 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DeltaOperationList.ofArrayMyers (cognitive 31) · ×1

DeltaOperationList.ofArrayMyers (cognitive 31) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:73 — DeltaOperationList.ofArrayMyers has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (19 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WeakOutputSet.Consume (cognitive 30) · ×1

WeakOutputSet.Consume (cognitive 30) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Core/Core.fs:397 — WeakOutputSet.Consume has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (18 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 19). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IndexListDeltaEnumerator`1.MoveNext (cognitive 30) · ×1

IndexListDeltaEnumerator`1.MoveNext (cognitive 30) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexListDelta.fs:107 — IndexListDeltaEnumerator`1.MoveNext has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (29 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtMappingEnumerator`3.MoveNext (cognitive 30) · ×1

MapExtMappingEnumerator`3.MoveNext (cognitive 30) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2700 — MapExtMappingEnumerator`3.MoveNext has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (29 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapExtEnumerator`2.MoveNext) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtEnumerator`2.MoveNext (cognitive 30) · ×1

MapExtEnumerator`2.MoveNext (cognitive 30) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:3683 — MapExtEnumerator`2.MoveNext has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (29 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapExtMappingEnumerator`3.MoveNext) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.tryRemove (cognitive 30) · ×1

SetNode.tryRemove (cognitive 30) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:964 — SetNode.tryRemove has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (28 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.alterV (cognitive 30) · ×1

MapNode.alterV (cognitive 30) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1890 — MapNode.alterV has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), match/switch 5 (14 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapNode.alter) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.alter (cognitive 30) · ×1

MapNode.alter (cognitive 30) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1931 — MapNode.alter has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), match/switch 5 (14 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapNode.alterV) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonState (cognitive 29) · ×1

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonState (cognitive 29) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2099 — ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingletonState has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (18 pts), if/else 9 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.overlaps (cognitive 29) · ×1

SetNode.overlaps (cognitive 29) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1266 — SetNode.overlaps has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.intersectionCount (cognitive 29) · ×1

SetNode.intersectionCount (cognitive 29) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1425 — SetNode.intersectionCount has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.tryRemove (cognitive 27) · ×1

MapNode.tryRemove (cognitive 27) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2001 — MapNode.tryRemove has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), match/switch 4 (12 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.changeV (cognitive 25) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.changeV (cognitive 25) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:747 — MapExtImplementation.changeV has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (14 pts), if/else 9 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (MapExtImplementation.change, ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.change (cognitive 25) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.change (cognitive 25) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:783 — MapExtImplementation.change has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (14 pts), if/else 9 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (MapExtImplementation.changeV, ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle (cognitive 25) · ×1

ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle (cognitive 25) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2161 — ApplyDelta.applyDeltaSingle has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (14 pts), if/else 9 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (MapExtImplementation.changeV, MapExtImplementation.change) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.subset (cognitive 25) · ×1

SetNode.subset (cognitive 25) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1217 — SetNode.subset has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.applyDeltaNoState (cognitive 25) · ×1

MapNode.applyDeltaNoState (cognitive 25) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2919 — MapNode.applyDeltaNoState has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ListSetMapReader`2.Compute (cognitive 22) · ×1

ListSetMapReader`2.Compute (cognitive 22) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:143 — ListSetMapReader`2.Compute has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (17 pts), if/else 1 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.addInPlace (cognitive 20) · ×1

SetNode.addInPlace (cognitive 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:915 — SetNode.addInPlace has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapNode.addInPlace) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.addInPlace (cognitive 20) · ×1

MapNode.addInPlace (cognitive 20) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2108 — MapNode.addInPlace has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (SetNode.addInPlace) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.sliceAt (cognitive 19) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.sliceAt (cognitive 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1761 — MapExtImplementation.sliceAt has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.applyDeltaNoState (cognitive 19) · ×1

SetNode.applyDeltaNoState (cognitive 19) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1701 — SetNode.applyDeltaNoState has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.tryRemove' (cognitive 18) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.tryRemove' (cognitive 18) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:641 — MapExtImplementation.tryRemove' has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapExtImplementation.tryRemove) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.tryRemove (cognitive 18) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.tryRemove (cognitive 18) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:675 — MapExtImplementation.tryRemove has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapExtImplementation.tryRemove') has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.equals (cognitive 18) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.equals (cognitive 18) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2658 — MapExtImplementation.equals has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SetNode.equals (cognitive 18) · ×1

SetNode.equals (cognitive 18) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1024 — SetNode.equals has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapNode.equals) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapNode.equals (cognitive 18) · ×1

MapNode.equals (cognitive 18) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2374 — MapNode.equals has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (SetNode.equals) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.getNeighbours (cognitive 17) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.getNeighbours (cognitive 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1424 — MapExtImplementation.getNeighbours has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapExtImplementation.getNeighboursAt) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.getNeighboursAt (cognitive 17) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.getNeighboursAt (cognitive 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1482 — MapExtImplementation.getNeighboursAt has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (MapExtImplementation.getNeighbours) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtBackwardMappingEnumerator`3.MoveNext (cognitive 17) · ×1

MapExtBackwardMappingEnumerator`3.MoveNext (cognitive 17) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2792 — MapExtBackwardMappingEnumerator`3.MoveNext has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ListTreeReader`1.Compute (cognitive 16) · ×1

ListTreeReader`1.Compute (cognitive 16) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:349 — ListTreeReader`1.Compute has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 2 (7 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), if/else 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MapExtImplementation.unionWith (cognitive 16) · ×1

MapExtImplementation.unionWith (cognitive 16) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1339 — MapExtImplementation.unionWith has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (38–39 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (38–39 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:240 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:240-277 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:230-268 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:240` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveValue.fs:70 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveValue.fs:70-105 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/AbstractVal.fs:8-43 — before extracting anything, compare `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveValue.fs` and `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/AbstractVal.fs` as WHOLE FILES: 91% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3130 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3130-3161 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3200-3231 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26–27 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (26–27 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:199 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptifyHelpers.fs:199-224 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:319-345 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Deltas.fs:400-426 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2724 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2724-2750 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:3707-3733 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2724` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:328 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:328-351 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:320-343 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:328-351 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:328` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21–24 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21–24 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:1 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:1-24 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fsi:1-21 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:633 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:633-655 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:718-740 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:633` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1859 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1859-1880 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3084-3105 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:84 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:84-104 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:79-99 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:83-103 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:84` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:601 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:601-621 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:627-646 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:627` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:948 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:948-967 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:974-992 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–20 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1003 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1003-1022 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1028-1044 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1498 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1498-1515 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1510-1528 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:1576-1593 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1498` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexListDelta.fs:118 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexListDelta.fs:118-136 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2711-2729 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:3694-3712 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:247 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:247-264 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:320-338 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:318 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:318-336 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/CountingHashSet.fs:341-359 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:666 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:666-682 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:714-730 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:762-779 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:114 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:114-129 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:109-125 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:113-128 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:114` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 9) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 9) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:86 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:86-101 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:177-191 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:334-347 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:81-96 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:167-181 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:326-339 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:85-100 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:176-190 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs:334-347 — there are 9 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 9 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:86` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1803 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1803-1818 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1848-1863 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3027-3042 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3073-3088 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1728 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1728-1743 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2954-2967 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2954` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1651 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1651-1665 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2873-2885 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:648 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:648-661 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:696-709 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:744-757 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1914 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1914-1925 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1955-1966 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1985-1997 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1985` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:967 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:967-979 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:1022-1033 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (4–13 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1351 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1351-1363 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1512-1524 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1577-1580 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1577` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1466 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1466-1478 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1526-1536 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 4) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveValue.fs:47 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveValue.fs:47-58 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveValue.fs:95-106 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveValue.fs:198-209 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/AbstractVal.fs:33-43 — before extracting anything, compare `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveValue.fs` and `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/AbstractVal.fs` as WHOLE FILES: 91% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–12 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveReduction.fs:116 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveReduction.fs:116-124 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveReduction.fs:134-145 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveValue/AdaptiveReduction.fs:134` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1009 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1009-1017 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1075-1085 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–9 lines × 14) · ×1

Duplicated block (6–9 lines × 14) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1246 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1246-1252 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1295-1300 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1350-1356 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1404-1410 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1454-1460 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1511-1517 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1567-1573 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1656-1664 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2507-2515 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2590-2596 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2667-2673 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2733-2739 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2789-2795 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2876-2884 — all 14 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1246` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:115 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:115-122 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:143-151 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/CollectionExtensions.fs:179-186 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (3–9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (3–9 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:636 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:636-644 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:691-693 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:732-740 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 7) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 7) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1227 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1227-1233 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1271-1277 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1323-1330 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1377-1384 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1484-1491 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1539-1546 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1604-1611 — all 7 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:1227` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 5) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:532 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:532-539 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:555-562 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:607-614 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1285-1291 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1313-1319 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1322 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1322-1329 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1338-1345 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1355-1362 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1371-1378 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1394 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1394-1401 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1410-1417 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1426-1433 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–6 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–6 lines × 5) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:859 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:859-869 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2663-2664 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2675-2680 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2729-2730 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2741-2746 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2680` calls `Mask` and `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2664` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (4–6 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:778 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:778-781 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:1883-1888 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2198-2204 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1320 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1320-1324 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1336-1340 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1353-1357 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1369-1373 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1392-1396 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1408-1412 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs:1424-1428 — all 7 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–5 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (4–5 lines × 6) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2381 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2381-2385 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2640-2644 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2706-2710 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2762-2766 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2826-2830 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2986-2989 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2381` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:547 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:547-551 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:570-574 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:772-776 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:808-812 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–5 lines × 8) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–5 lines × 8) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:203 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:203-204 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:211-215 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:228-229 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:234-236 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fsi:294-295 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fsi:302-306 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fsi:319-320 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fsi:325-327 — there are 8 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 8 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:203` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:234` calls `when`, `member` and `src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fsi:211` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–5 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–5 lines × 3) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3250 — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:3250-3251 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2778-2782 | src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/MapExt.fs:2859-2863 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:67 — src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:67-79 | src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:111-123 | src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:155-167 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:67` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:188 — src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:188-199 | src/Demo/Scratch/ABag.fs:207-217 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:48 — src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:48-58 | src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:92-102 | src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:136-146 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Demo/Scratch/Observable.fs:48` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1

Low cohesion: History`2 (LCOM4 5) src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs:128 — History`2's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

P2 · Observability · No structured logging · ×1

No structured logging — No logging or diagnostics emission found. This repository ships a binary its users launch rather than a service you operate, so there is no operator to page — but when a run fails on a user's machine, neither they nor you have anything to read.

SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1

NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.

Minor — 21 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×3

Outdated: FSharp.Core — FSharp.Core 4.7.2 → 10.1.402 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive).
Outdated: FsUnit — FsUnit 3.4.1 → 8.0.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: NUnit3TestAdapter — NUnit3TestAdapter 3.15.1 → 6.3.1 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×3

Duplicated predicate src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs:1642 — `lowerBound.IsConstant && upperBound.IsConstant` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs, src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:48 — `reader.State.Count <= 2 || reader.State.Count <= ops.Count` appears character-identically in 3 files — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs, src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs, src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs:270 — `state.Count <= 2 || state.Count <= ops.Count` appears character-identically in 3 files — src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashMap/AdaptiveHashMap.fs, src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveHashSet/AdaptiveHashSet.fs, src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/AdaptiveIndexList/AdaptiveIndexList.fs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/IndexList.fs, src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/Index.fs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 1 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (4 single-owned of 37 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 37 of the 49 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (2 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above. The files folded here: src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Traceable/History.fs, src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Core/Callbacks.fs.

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1

redundant comment src/Demo/CSharpInterop/Program.cs:119 — "BenchmarkRunner.Run<ForEachBenchmarks>();" — delete - restates the call site; only keep a WHY comment if it explains why BenchmarkRunner is used

D27 · Navigability · Scattered collaborators · ×1

Scattered collaborators — 96 % of calls cross a namespace and only 57 % of collaborators are co-located — group each feature's code into a vertical slice so a call's collaborators sit together.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1

IL efficiency: 45 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2972 — 45 of 4548 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: FSharp.Data.Adaptive.HashImplementation/MapNode.applyDelta @ src/FSharp.Data.Adaptive/Datastructures/HashCollections.fs:2972, 1586 IL instructions; that pulled this dimension to 9.8/10. These bodies are far past the JIT's inline budget, so splitting them does not make them inlinable — what moves the number is emitting less: collapsing LINQ chains and closures on hot paths, and interpolation built eagerly where it is only sometimes used.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1

No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 3055 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1

No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere · ×1

Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 0/1 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

Minor — 30 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×30

Outdated: Aardvark.Build — Aardvark.Build 2.0.3 → 2.0.7 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive).
Outdated: Fable.Core — Fable.Core 3.0.0 → 5.6.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive).
Outdated: BenchmarkDotNet — BenchmarkDotNet 0.14.0 → 0.15.8 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: BenchmarkDotNet.Annotations — BenchmarkDotNet.Annotations 0.14.0 → 0.15.8 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: FsCheck — FsCheck 2.14.6 → 3.6.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: FsCheck.NUnit — FsCheck.NUnit 2.14.6 → 3.6.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers 3.11.0 → 5.9.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Common — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Common 4.11.0 → 5.9.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp 4.11.0 → 5.9.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeCoverage — Microsoft.CodeCoverage 17.11.1 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.Diagnostics.NETCore.Client — Microsoft.Diagnostics.NETCore.Client 0.2.547301 → 0.2.750501 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.Diagnostics.Runtime — Microsoft.Diagnostics.Runtime 3.1.512801 → 4.2.751201 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.Diagnostics.Tracing.TraceEvent — Microsoft.Diagnostics.Tracing.TraceEvent 3.1.15 → 4.0.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 8.0.2 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 8.0.2 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 16.4.0 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel — Microsoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel 17.11.1 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.TestPlatform.TestHost — Microsoft.TestPlatform.TestHost 17.11.1 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 13.0.3 → 13.0.4 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: NUnit — NUnit 3.12.0 → 5.0.0 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: Perfolizer — Perfolizer 0.3.17 → 0.7.5 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: System.CodeDom — System.CodeDom 8.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: System.Collections.Immutable — System.Collections.Immutable 8.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: System.Management — System.Management 8.0.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
Outdated: System.Reflection.Metadata — System.Reflection.Metadata 8.0.1 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by FSharp.Data.Adaptive.Tests).
+ 5 more in this group — see findings.md.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-92092abf87f74df797aef56339804d59/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-92092abf87f74df797aef56339804d59/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	11	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	nuget	—	nuget: not applicable — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/gdpr.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	9	artifacts/raw/semgrep-gdpr.json
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a16ac0-55ec-7245-b130-0735cb4f09db · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 70% · Adequate · gated by X5 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 52% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 41% · Weak · gated by P2, P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D32, D36 ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts