Independent review of 0a5b936 returned two blocking findings and one factual
error. The first two are one issue: invariant 21 mandates two directions, and
only one -- unspecified -- had durable evidence.
1. Neither direction had permanent named coverage. Pin 6 asked for "a score
violating only invariant 21" (singular), gate 6 asked for one score, the
generator carries one, and M6 observed both directions only while mutated.
A mutation is reverted, so the restored suite could ship with one branch
untested.
Pin 6a added: two permanent, direction-isolated tests --
m41_check_invariants_dispatches_invariant_21_staff_names_absent_group (S->G)
and m41b_check_invariants_dispatches_invariant_21_group_lists_unowned_staff
(G->S) -- each required to SATISFY the direction it does not break. Gate 6
requires both verdicts. M6 now breaks those exact tests, one each, and
requires the sibling to still pass; the surviving test passing is what
proves the arms independent rather than one arm catching everything.
This contract already stated the rule and did not apply it to itself: pin
3a says "a mutation demonstrates the hazard once; only a test keeps it
demonstrated." M6 was carrying both directions on mutation alone, three
sections below that sentence.
2. "One named direction" delegated a design decision to execution. Either
choice changes the generated witness and the shrink evidence, so reporting
it afterward is not specifying it. Pinned to S->G in touch row 8, with the
reason: smallest corruption of valid_score (drop the staff id from
group.members, leave staff.group intact), matching every other arm's
doctrine, and the exact shape pin 2's append failing produces -- which is
what M2 observes.
Three fixtures now have three distinct purposes: row 8's generator (S->G,
survives shrink), pin 6a's two direction-isolated tests, and M6 as their
signature. None stands in for another.
3. §6's revision-B history said §4 has "twelve entries -- 1-11 plus 4a," a
false identity. The item numbered 4a. was a scope note with no command and
no output -- it could not be "a gate result" -- and it collided with §4a,
the landing-obligation section. Demoted out of the gate numbering into gate
4's body. §4 now has eleven gates, 1-11, and §4a is unambiguous.
Still DRAFT, still unratified. No implementation work has begun.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x
Levi Neuwirth
25473a1bc5