P13-S27 round 13: M7 could have passed by deleting the check it observes

Independent review against bff9c9a. One finding, blocking, and it inverted
M7's result.

M7 claimed the capability check "does not fire". Pin 3a requires commit and
commit_versioned to validate a newly emitted canonical base, which is
exactly what both B_raw and the parsed A commit. The check fires on both
paths and accepts, because the raw version equals the real authority. That
acceptance is the laundering result: the base is not slipped past an absent
check, it is admitted by a check working correctly that cannot tell a
coincidence from a rebuild.

As written, M7 was satisfiable by deleting pin 3a's writer check entirely --
a passing M7 demonstrating the exact opposite of its purpose.

M7 now requires three observations: A.image() equals B_fixed.image(); pin
3a's validation ran and accepted on both commits; and a control. The control
is required -- in the same run, same harness, repeat the import with a base
version deliberately not equal to the real authority and observe the commit
rejected with CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild. The matching case succeeding
means something only once the mismatching case is seen to fail on the same
path, under the same removals.

M7's removals are now explicitly limited to the text refusals. Pin 3a is not
among them and may not be weakened: it is the thing under observation, not
an obstacle to it. Removing both boundaries would not be a stronger
mutation, it would be a different and empty experiment.

This is a new failure shape worth naming: an observation satisfiable by the
absence of the thing it observes. M7's earlier defects were about being
unrunnable, or comparing the wrong artifacts. This one would have run,
passed, and reported success on a tree where the writer check had been
removed. "The check does not fire" cannot distinguish a check that accepts
from a check that is not there, and only one of those is the finding.

Two dependent sites updated as pointers rather than restatements: section 7
item 4a's M7 row now owes every observation including the control, and item
1 notes the control's expected outcome is a rejection, so a reporter does
not read it as a problem.

Still NOT RATIFIED, NOT DISPATCHABLE. Findings 9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1,
3, 2, 1. Blocking 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1. Thirteen rounds,
none clean. Round 13 is the narrowest since the probe, but it asked a
question no earlier round had asked -- not "can this run?" or "does this
compare the right things?" but "could this pass for the wrong reason?" --
and that question has not been put to M1 through M6, M5a or M5b.

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

@@ -159,7 +159,8 @@ rows — read it off, do not restate it.
 | *scratch probe* | *1 falsification* | — | *execution, not review* |
 | round 11 | 3 | 2 | **yes** |
 | round 12 | 2 | 2 | **yes** |
-| **Total** | **46** | **33** | one amendment per row |
+| round 13 | 1 | 1 | **yes** |
+| **Total** | **47** | **34** | 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
@@ -412,13 +413,34 @@ solely so a negative vector can carry the spelling it asserts is refused.
 widened public surface behind**, which is how a temporary harness becomes an API
 change nobody ratified.
 
-**What round 13 should weigh, stated against interest:** findings by round are
-**9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2**; blocking **4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1,
-2, 2**. Twelve rounds, **none clean**. The last two rounds found the same *kind*
-of defect — a requirement that reads as a decision but isn't one — which suggests
-scanning M7 for remaining instructions that name a constraint without naming its
-value. **Everything M7 now specifies is pinned to a number, a crate or a named
-artifact**, which is a checkable property a round can test directly. **Treat
+**Review round 13 — 2026-08-08, independent, against `bff9c9a`.** **One finding,
+blocking** — and it inverted M7's result.
+
+| # | Finding | Disposition |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1 | **M7 claimed the capability check "does not fire".** Pin 3a validates a **newly emitted** canonical base, which is exactly what **both** `B_raw` and `A` commit. The check fires on both paths and **accepts**, because the raw version equals the real authority. **As written, M7 was satisfiable by deleting pin 3a's writer check entirely** — a passing M7 demonstrating the opposite of its purpose | Claim corrected to *fires and accepts*; **three required observations**; and a **control** added — the same path with a mismatched version must be **rejected** with `CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild` |
+
+**This is a new failure shape, and worth naming: an observation satisfiable by the
+absence of the thing it observes.** M7's earlier defects were about being
+unrunnable, or comparing the wrong artifacts. This one would have *run*, *passed*,
+and *reported success* — on a tree where the writer check had been removed.
+**"The check does not fire" cannot distinguish a check that accepts from a check
+that is not there**, and only one of those is the finding.
+
+**The control is what makes the positive result mean anything.** The matching case
+succeeding is evidence only once the mismatching case is seen to fail on the same
+path, in the same run, under the same removals. **M7's removals are now explicitly
+limited to the text refusals** — pin 3a is not among them and may not be weakened,
+because it is the thing under observation rather than an obstacle to it.
+
+**What round 14 should weigh, stated against interest:** findings by round are
+**9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1**; blocking **4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2,
+1, 2, 2, 1**. Thirteen rounds, **none clean**. Round 13 is the second single-finding
+round and the narrowest since the probe. **But it found a defect of a kind no
+earlier round had looked for** — not "can this run?" or "does this compare the
+right things?" but **"could this pass for the wrong reason?"** — and that question
+has **not** been asked of M1–M6, M5a or M5b. **Every mutation in §4 deserves the
+same check**: what else, besides the intended defect, would make it pass? **Treat
 "dispatchable" as a claim requiring evidence of convergence, not a status reached
 by running out of findings.**
 
@@ -1746,10 +1768,51 @@ conclusion is precisely the reasoning-instead-of-observing this rung exists to
 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 `A.image()` equals `B_fixed.image()` — the
-document launders precisely *because* its number matches, and no check can tell a
-coincidence from a rebuild.
+**What the observation must show, or it has not been made. CORRECTED IN ROUND 13
+— the previous wording inverted the result.**
+
+It read *"the capability check does **not** fire."* **That is backwards.** Pin 3a
+requires `commit`/`commit_versioned` to validate a **newly emitted** canonical
+base — and **both** `B_raw` and `A` commit exactly that. **The check fires on both
+paths. It fires and it ACCEPTS**, because the raw version equals the real
+authority.
+
+**That acceptance is the whole laundering result:** the base is not slipped past
+an absent check, it is **admitted by a check that is working correctly and cannot
+tell a coincidence from a rebuild.**
+
+Therefore M7 must show **all three** of:
+
+1. **`A.image()` equals `B_fixed.image()`** — the container records nothing about
+   how the base arrived.
+2. **Pin 3a's writer validation ran and accepted** on both commits.
+3. **The control below.**
+
+### The control — REQUIRED, added in round 13
+
+**In the same run, with the same harness, repeat the import with a base version
+deliberately NOT equal to the real authority, and observe that the commit is
+REJECTED with `CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild`.**
+
+**Without this control, M7 is satisfiable by deleting pin 3a's writer check
+entirely** — which would produce a *passing* M7 while demonstrating the exact
+opposite of what M7 exists to show. An observation that the check "does not fire"
+cannot distinguish **a check that accepts** from **a check that is not there**,
+and only one of those is the finding.
+
+**The control is what proves the check was live.** The matching case succeeding
+means something only once the mismatching case is seen to fail on the same path,
+in the same run, under the same removals.
+
+> **M7's removals are limited to the text refusals — pin 3a is NOT among them,
+> and MUST NOT be removed or weakened.** M7 mutates the *text* boundary to make a
+> path reachable; it does not mutate the *authority* boundary, which is the thing
+> under observation. Removing both would not be a stronger mutation, it would be
+> a different and empty experiment.
+
+**Report all three observations, and the control's error variant by name.** A
+report giving only observation 1 has not made the demonstration — it has measured
+two byte strings.
 
 ### The claim M7 establishes, and the one it does NOT. SCOPED IN ROUND 11.
 
@@ -1886,7 +1949,11 @@ in §N" to a number.*
 1. **Every mutation in §4** — currently **eight** (M1, M2, M3, M4, **M5a**,
    **M5b**, M6, M7), each with verbatim output. *(M5 split in review round 2.)*
    **M4 is a recorded prohibition** (observed to compile, then reverted) and
-   **M7 is a demonstration whose expected outcome is success**. Neither is a
+   **M7 is a demonstration whose expected outcome is success — except its
+   control (round 13), whose expected outcome is a REJECTION.** A report that
+   treats the control's rejection as a problem has misread it: that rejection is
+   the evidence pin 3a's writer check was live, without which M7's success proves
+   nothing. Neither M4 nor M7 is a
    passing guard; do not report them as one.
 2. **Every gate item in §5** — currently **eight** (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6a, 7),
    each with the command that produced it.
@@ -1907,7 +1974,7 @@ in §N" to a number.*
    | M5a | test **10a** fails, **plus** the provenance of the asserted operand |
    | M5b | test **10b** fails with both error fields asserted, **plus** the provenance of *both* operands |
    | M6 | test **5** fails (first half); test **9** fails (second half) |
-   | **M7** | **no test — its expected outcome is success.** It owes the comparison M7 specifies, and confirmation that the refusals M7 names as removed were restored. **Counts, methods and file names live in M7, not here** — this cell said "all three refusals" until round 8 and "field-by-field enumeration" until round 9, each time describing a method M7 no longer used |
+   | **M7** | **no test — its expected outcome is success.** It owes **every observation M7 specifies, including its control**, and confirmation that the refusals M7 names as removed were restored. **Counts, methods and file names live in M7, not here** — this cell said "all three refusals" until round 8 and "field-by-field enumeration" until round 9, each time describing a method M7 no longer used |
 
    **M4 and M7 were unsatisfiable under the previous wording.** Item 1 already
    said both are "not a passing guard", yet this item demanded a test each