`--fail-ack-append-after N` states that the run met an acknowledgment-journal
failure at append N. A run that ended before reaching N — too short a window,
too few groups, a store that refused every submit — met none of it, and still
emitted an ordinary bundle: the flag was on the command line, the failure
never happened, and nothing in the output said so. Same class of defect as
the ack write failure this flag exists to induce, one level up.
So the arming is treated as a claim and `fired` as the counter, compared at
run completion on both seams, before any total is read. The negative control
is the load-bearing half of the test: a check that refused every armed run
would satisfy the refusal assertion, so the same seam runs with a reachable
target and must still report the *injected* failure rather than the arming
one. The two refusals are asserted to stay distinguishable.
The usage statement said "emits no bundle by construction", which was only
true when the target was reachable. It now says so unconditionally, which is
what the code does.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XKzM69CHmBuDcA3qN1jFdh
Levi Neuwirth
64dc949370