P13-S27 round 11: M7 gets a normalized reference and a narrower claim

Independent review against 39f2617, post-probe. Three findings, two
blocking. It confirmed the probe contained and its fixed-point result
decisive, and kept M7 blocked.

M7 still lacked a distinct normalized reference. Round 10 named one
artifact where the comparison needs two. Now: build B_raw under the real
authority; iterate derive-and-reserialize until B_fixed is a byte-level
fixed point; assert that property explicitly as a hard failure; and compare
the imported artifact only with B_fixed, never with B_raw. Otherwise an
envelope-order normalization difference stays indistinguishable from a
provenance result, and a comparison whose failure mode cannot be told from
its success condition decides nothing. The convergence loop is bounded and
must fail if it does not converge -- the probe saw one pass suffice for
three documents, which is not proof that one pass always suffices -- and
the iteration count plus whether B_raw was already fixed must be reported,
so a reader can tell the lucky case from the general one.

The claim was stated more broadly than any observation supports. M7 read as
though every direct bundle is byte-identical to its re-imported form. It is
not, and the probe measured 295 differing bytes proving so. Scoped now: M7
proves the text path carries no provenance marker after normalization, and
explicitly not that every direct bundle is byte-identical before it, since
the pre-normalization differences are document_from_bundle's canonical
envelope ordering and have nothing to do with provenance. Both sentences
must appear in the report; the unqualified version is false as written and
is the one a reader would otherwise carry forward.

That finding has consequences beyond M7. Its conclusion is the sole
evidence for a permanent capability loss -- the text refusal that moved
COMPANION_VERSION to 0.14.0 and took the corpus's canonical_bases from 2 to
0. Justifying a permanent refusal from a claim broader than the result
obtained is the same error as concluding instead of observing, one level up:
not a false observation, but a true one asked to carry more than it can.

Third, a clarification rather than a defect: the probe cannot pre-verify
M7's authority/base leg, which needs BundleCapabilities, capabilities() and
pin 3a's validation, all S27's own deliverables. That stays an execution
requirement after S27 implementation, with the probe as evidence for the
prerequisite and explicitly not as a demonstration of laundering, since it
carried no base. Recorded as a standing prerequisite table: the round-trip
leg is settled, the authority leg is not pre-verifiable by any review or
probe.

Still NOT RATIFIED, NOT DISPATCHABLE. Findings 9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1,
3. Blocking 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2. Eleven rounds, none clean.
Round 11 broke the falling trend, and did so because the probe supplied
evidence that made a previously invisible defect findable -- a reason to
expect the next round to find more rather than less. The comparator is on
its fifth design: four falsified by reading, the fifth by execution and then
rebuilt on that evidence. It is the first with a measured result behind it
and the first whose precondition is asserted rather than assumed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x

spec/CONTRACT_P13S27_REDUCTION_AUTHORITY.md

@@ -114,7 +114,26 @@ diff was captured before deletion.**
 > reviewer would least likely hand-pick — a document with an extension.** M7's
 > first probe *passed*; had the probe stopped at the case round 10 implied, the
 > contract would have been ratified on a comparison that fails for most
-> documents. **No execution work may begin** — not implementation, not staging,
+> documents.
+
+**What the probe settled, and what it structurally cannot — the division stands
+as a standing prerequisite, not a to-do.**
+
+| Leg of M7 | Status |
+|---|---|
+| **Round-trip machinery** — is the text path byte-preserving, and under what precondition? | **SETTLED by the probe.** Byte-preserving from a fixed point; the precondition is now steps 1a–1c |
+| **Authority/base leg** — does a base validated under the real authority produce a container indistinguishable from a laundered one? | **NOT settled, and NOT pre-verifiable.** It requires `BundleCapabilities`, `capabilities()` and pin 3a's validation — **S27's own deliverables** |
+
+**No review round and no further probe can close the second row.** M7 is a
+mutation *of this rung's implementation*; mutations run after the rung. **It is
+therefore an execution requirement, to be discharged after S27 is implemented and
+before the rung reports** — carried in §7 as the observation M7 owes.
+
+**The probe's standing is evidence for the prerequisite, not partial completion of
+it.** It establishes that when the authority leg becomes runnable, the comparison
+it runs will be sound — *provided* steps 1a–1c hold. **Do not cite the probe as
+having demonstrated laundering. It demonstrated nothing about bases; it carried
+none.** **No execution work may begin** — not implementation, not staging,
 not partial work against "the settled pins."
 
 **History — the running tally, which has now gone stale three times and been
@@ -137,7 +156,9 @@ rows — read it off, do not restate it.
 | round 8 | 2 | 2 | **yes** |
 | round 9 | 2 | 2 | **yes** |
 | round 10 | 1 | 1 | **yes** |
-| **Total** | **41** | **29** | one amendment per row |
+| *scratch probe* | *1 falsification* | — | *execution, not review* |
+| round 11 | 3 | 2 | **yes** |
+| **Total** | **44** | **31** | one amendment per row |
 
 **This block previously read "amended three times … fifteen findings so far,
 eight of them blocking"** — the round-2 figures, left standing through rounds 3
@@ -348,19 +369,36 @@ two removed refusals" instruction, whose count round 10's restructure invalidate
 for the third time (hence no count is stated now), and round 8's disposition cell
 still reading as current.
 
-**What round 11 should weigh, stated against interest:** findings by round are
+**Review round 11 — 2026-08-08, independent, against `39f2617` (post-probe).**
-**9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1**; blocking **4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1**. Ten
+Three findings, **two blocking**. It confirmed the probe contained and its
-rounds, **none clean**, and **three consecutive rounds have found exactly one
+fixed-point result decisive, and **kept M7 blocked.**
-paragraph — M7 — defective in a new way each time**: unrunnable, wrong artifact,
+
-wrong method, incomplete alignment. Findings are now falling steadily and every
+| # | Finding | Disposition |
-one of the last three has been narrower than the last, which is the first
+|---|---|---|
-sustained convergence signal in the contract's history. **Against that: M7 has
+| 1 | **M7 still lacked a distinct normalised reference.** Round 10 named one artifact; the comparison needs `B_raw` **and** `B_fixed`, with an explicit convergence loop and a hard fixed-point assertion, and the comparand must never be `B_raw` — otherwise an envelope-order normalisation difference stays **indistinguishable from a provenance result** | Steps **1a–1c** added; step 5 forbids `B_raw` as a comparand |
-never been executed, and each of its four designs looked correct when written.**
+| 2 | **The claim was stated more broadly than any observation supports.** M7 read as though every direct bundle is byte-identical to its re-imported form; it is not, and the probe measured 295 differing bytes proving so | New scope section: it proves the text path carries **no provenance marker after normalisation**, and explicitly not the pre-normalisation claim. **Both sentences must appear in the report** |
-The honest question for round 11 is whether the next defect is findable by reading
+| 3 | *(clarification, not a defect)* The probe cannot pre-verify M7's authority/base leg; that stays an execution requirement after S27, with the probe as evidence for the prerequisite | Recorded as a **standing prerequisite table**, with the explicit instruction not to cite the probe as having demonstrated laundering |
-at all, or whether M7 now needs to be *run* — against a scratch branch, reporting
+
-what the code actually does — before another round of paper review can add
+**Finding 2 is the one with consequences beyond M7.** M7's conclusion is the sole
-anything. **Treat "dispatchable" as a claim requiring evidence of convergence, not
+evidence for a **permanent** capability loss — the text refusal that moved
-a status reached by running out of findings.**
+`COMPANION_VERSION` to 0.14.0 and took the corpus's `canonical_bases` from 2 to 0.
+**Justifying a permanent refusal from a claim broader than the result obtained is
+the same error as concluding instead of observing**, one level up: not a false
+observation, but a true one asked to carry more than it can.
+
+**What round 12 should weigh, stated against interest:** findings by round are
+**9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3**; blocking **4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2**.
+Eleven rounds, **none clean**. Round 11 broke the falling trend, and it did so
+**because the probe supplied evidence that made a previously invisible defect
+findable** — which is a reason to expect the *next* round to find more, not less,
+now that M7's comparison has measured ground truth to be checked against.
+
+**The M7 comparator is now on its fifth design.** Four were falsified by reading;
+the fifth was falsified by execution and then rebuilt on that evidence. **It is
+the first design with a measured result behind it and the first whose precondition
+is asserted rather than assumed** — and it still cannot be executed end to end
+until S27 is implemented. **Treat "dispatchable" as a claim requiring evidence of
+convergence, not a status reached by running out of findings.**
 
 (Was: DRAFT, BLOCKED on the format-epoch rung,
 `spec/CONTRACT_FORMAT_EPOCH_MAJOR1.md`, which at the time was ratified and in
@@ -1503,17 +1541,47 @@ an external document can do is the entire threat.
 RESTRUCTURED IN ROUND 10 — see the alignment note below.** The demonstration is a
 **round trip**, which is also the realistic form of the threat:
 
-1. **Build `B`, the validated reference**, in a crate that can reach the real
+**Steps 1a–1c added in round 11, on the probe's evidence.** Round 10's version
+compared against the artifact built in step 1, and the probe proved that only
+works when its input document happens already to be a fixed point.
+
+1. **Build `B_raw`, the validated reference**, in a crate that can reach the real
    constant: create a bundle with `caps` derived from
    **`CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION`** and commit a canonical base carrying
    that same version, so **pin 3a's writer check validates it on the way in**.
    That — and only that — is a genuinely validated base.
-2. **Export `B` to text.** `document_from_bundle` to a `TextDocument`, then the
+
-   crate-private `render_text_document` — which **does not refuse**, and exists
+1a. **Normalise to a byte-level fixed point.** Iterate
-   precisely so the base spelling can be produced for a negative vector.
+   `doc = document_from_bundle(B_n)` → `B_{n+1} = serialize_document(doc, uuid)`
+   **until `B_{n+1}.image() == B_n.image()`.** Call the result **`B_fixed`**.
+   **Bound the loop and fail if it does not converge**; the probe observed one
+   pass sufficing for three documents, which is **not** a proof that one pass
+   always suffices.
+
+1b. **Assert the fixed-point property explicitly** — that
+   `serialize_document(document_from_bundle(B_fixed), uuid).image()` equals
+   `B_fixed.image()`. **This assertion is the precondition of the whole
+   comparison and must be a hard failure, not a comment.**
+
+1c. **Report the iteration count** step 1a needed, and **whether `B_raw` was
+   already fixed.** If it was, say so — that is the coincidence that made the
+   probe's first case pass, and a reader must be able to tell the lucky case from
+   the general one.
+
+2. **Export `B_fixed` to text.** `document_from_bundle` to a `TextDocument`, then
+   the crate-private `render_text_document` — which **does not refuse**, and
+   exists precisely so the base spelling can be produced for a negative vector.
 3. **Parse that text back** with `parse_document`, giving `D`.
-4. **`A = serialize_document(D)`**, with **`B`'s `FileUuid`**.
+4. **`A = serialize_document(D)`**, with **`B_fixed`'s `FileUuid`**.
-5. **Compare `A.image()` with `B.image()`.**
+5. **Compare `A.image()` with `B_fixed.image()` — and NEVER with `B_raw`.**
+
+> **Why `B_raw` is not a permitted comparand.** `document_from_bundle` applies a
+> **canonical envelope ordering**, so if `B_raw`'s envelopes arrived in any other
+> order, `A` and `B_raw` differ **by that normalisation alone**. The probe measured
+> it: **295 differing bytes from offset 352** on a one-extension document. That
+> difference is **indistinguishable from a provenance result** — and a comparison
+> whose failure mode cannot be told apart from its success condition decides
+> nothing. `B_raw` exists only to be normalised; it is never compared.
 
 **The comparison artifact — built by M7 itself. CORRECTED IN ROUND 9.**
 
@@ -1606,10 +1674,36 @@ stamp out — round 1 wrote the conclusion and specified no way to reach it, and
 round 8 specified a way that could not support it.
 
 **What the observation must show, or it has not been made:** that the capability
-check does **not** fire, and that **no enumerated field differs** — the document
+check does **not** fire, and that `A.image()` equals `B_fixed.image()` — the
-launders precisely *because* its number matches, and no check can tell a
+document launders precisely *because* its number matches, and no check can tell a
 coincidence from a rebuild.
 
+### The claim M7 establishes, and the one it does NOT. SCOPED IN ROUND 11.
+
+**What it proves:** **the text path carries no provenance marker — after
+normalisation.** A document exported to text and re-imported yields a container
+byte-identical to the normalised validated one, so nothing in the container
+records *how* the base arrived.
+
+**What it does NOT prove, and must not be written as though it does:** that
+**every** direct bundle is byte-identical to its re-imported form **before**
+normalisation. **It is not** — the probe measured 295 differing bytes on a
+one-extension document, and two of three documents tested were not fixed points.
+Those differences are `document_from_bundle`'s canonical envelope ordering, and
+they have **nothing to do with provenance**.
+
+**Why the distinction is load-bearing rather than pedantic.** M7's conclusion is
+the sole evidence for a **permanent capability loss** — the text refusal that cost
+`COMPANION_VERSION` 0.14.0 and took the corpus's `canonical_bases` from 2 to 0. A
+justification stated more broadly than the observation supports would be arguing
+for a permanent refusal from a result that was never obtained. **State the
+normalised claim, and state the exclusion beside it.**
+
+**Report both sentences in the rung's report**, not just the first. An
+unqualified "the text path is indistinguishable from the validated path" is
+**false as written**, and it is the sentence a reader will otherwise carry
+forward.
+
 > **This mutation is informative in both directions, which is why it is worth
 > running.** If every field matches, the refusal is justified and the format
 > rung's reasoning is confirmed by observation for the first time. **If any field