You are a constitutional council ranking individual git commits for ownership allocation.

Compare these two commits. Decide which contributed more lasting value to the project.

Judge substance, not spectacle:
- Prefer correct, lasting design and real bugfixes over churn, formatting, renames, or generated noise.
- Prefer clarity and necessity over sheer line count. A small precise change can beat a large diffuse one.
- Do not favor a side merely because its patch is longer or noisier.
- Weight what the change does for the project, not the contributor's name.

Return ONLY a JSON object: {"winner": "A" or "B", "ratio": "N:M", "explanation": "..."}
The explanation must cite concrete differences in the patches (1-3 sentences).

Side A — contributor: tommy-mor
Side A — commit message:
[65bce99f] sibling groups #130

Side A — unified diff (full patch):
diff --git a/server/src/html/garden.rs b/server/src/html/garden.rs
index 82c1b4b4f36ea13a906035a1789ba893222b3695..e3c56d124ab7b0fa08c7f9ae736103e6b7cf5862 100644
--- a/server/src/html/garden.rs
+++ b/server/src/html/garden.rs
@@ -837,7 +837,8 @@ struct SiblingNavGroup {
     links: Vec<SiblingNavLink>,
 }
 
-/// Siblings under the same parent, grouped like child rankings (components then isolates).
+/// Siblings under the same parent: one group per ranking component (ordered list), then one
+/// group per isolated unranked sibling (each shows rank `1`, separated like components).
 #[derive(Debug, Clone)]
 struct SiblingNavBar {
     groups: Vec<SiblingNavGroup>,
@@ -890,15 +891,12 @@ fn build_sibling_nav(
             groups.push(SiblingNavGroup { links });
         }
     }
-    if !rankings.unranked_items.is_empty() {
-        let links: Vec<SiblingNavLink> = rankings
-            .unranked_items
-            .iter()
-            .map(|u| SiblingNavLink {
+    for u in &rankings.unranked_items {
+        groups.push(SiblingNavGroup {
+            links: vec![SiblingNavLink {
                 path: u.clone().normalized_storage().to_storage_string(),
-            })
-            .collect();
-        groups.push(SiblingNavGroup { links });
+            }],
+        });
     }
     let sibling_total: usize = groups.iter().map(|g| g.links.len()).sum();
     if sibling_total <= 1 {
@@ -1541,6 +1539,29 @@ mod tests {
         assert_eq!(nav.groups[1].links.len(), 1);
     }
 
+    #[test]
+    fn sibling_nav_splits_each_unranked_into_its_own_group() {
+        let mut reduced = ReducerState::default();
+        apply_ingest(
+            &mut reduced,
+            1,
+            "@00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000:test:local/test\n\
+             ~/topic {topic body}\n\
+             ~/topic/a {alpha}\n\
+             ~/topic/b {beta}\n\
+             ~/topic/c {gamma}\n\
+             ~/topic/d {delta}\n\
+             {a beats b}\n             ~/topic/a 2:1 ~/topic/b\n",
+        );
+
+        let model = build_item_page_view_model(&reduced, &ScopeId::Public, "~/topic/a");
+        let nav = model.sibling_nav.expect("expected sibling nav");
+        assert_eq!(nav.groups.len(), 3);
+        assert_eq!(nav.groups[0].links.len(), 2);
+        assert_eq!(nav.groups[1].links.len(), 1);
+        assert_eq!(nav.groups[2].links.len(), 1);
+    }
+
     #[test]
     fn item_page_model_builds_ranked_child_components() {
         let mut reduced = ReducerState::default();


Side B — contributor: tommy-mor
Side B — commit message:
[66da3bc4] note

Side B — unified diff (full patch):
diff --git a/notes.tdsl b/notes.tdsl
index 86e1e9cc78258a9669d14fc3baa19a1c586d7b66..a05487df6c445d9b333421e1d7781f2587f01298 100644
--- a/notes.tdsl
+++ b/notes.tdsl
@@ -26,3 +26,5 @@ maybe root item body should be hardcoded to flower? you can't define a body for
 need consistent + in corener of section header that morphs/expands in add form. i think morph. you can only see the form if you're logged in. 
 
 my json-encoded plan is not being used for the forms. i want that same plan for the morphable/expandable + signs that produce forms. form target encoded... there was a plan.md with this. plan2.md...
+
+new public thread form needs fewer words