Joseph Doherty
540a1188aa
Follow-up to 90331b6. Three comment/prose corrections, no behaviour change.
AcknowledgeByName's comment still said the 6-arg overload "works and reaches the
alarm-history path correctly", which the same commit's own findings contradict in
three other places. It now says what was observed: rc=0 means accepted, not
applied — the 2026-08-18 probe acked a live alarm six ways and the snapshot, the
OPERATOR_NAME field, and the extension's .Acked attribute all stayed put. The -55
tracks the consumer, not the overload. Subscribe's comment gets the same
treatment: "lets AlarmAckByName succeed" becomes "return rc=0".
AlarmProbeFindings.md said the re-raise arrives as "a separate record" alongside
the returned one, which reads as coexistence and is wrong. The snapshot carries
one record per tag: the cap=1024 replies bracketing the re-raise are both
elementCount=3 (one per TestMachine_00{1,2,3}) at an identical 1613 bytes, and the
old GUID is absent from the later one. The re-raise replaces the record, so a
single poll spanning it sees the Clear and the Raise together.
Worker diff verified strictly comment-only; builds x86 on windev, 0W/0E.