Whole-artifact review of 80be47c returned one blocking finding: round 6's
blast-radius rule contradicted itself.
It required every mutation to state every expected failing test, then left M1,
M2 and M5 for execution to derive -- the discover-the-radius model it claimed
to eliminate, with the expected set depending on the executor's reading. And
execution cannot both author the table and certify its own result against it.
The cited surfaces were also insufficient, not merely incomplete. Round 6
listed touch row 8, pin 1a and pin 8. None owns t8c, which pin 3a defines four
sections away asserting g.members == [s] -- exactly the value pin 2 maintains,
so M2 breaks it. Any derivation from the stated surfaces would have missed it.
The instruction was unfollowable as well as misassigned.
§3 now carries the contract's own per-mutation expected-outcome table: failing
tests, notable required survivors with the reason each survives, and structural
gate outcomes, for all ten mutation halves. Dependency surfaces are cited and
now include pins 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a and 7 alongside pin 1a, pin 8, touch row 8, and
check_invariant = check_invariants(...).filter(...).
Execution re-derives the table against the staged tree and reports any
mismatch, in either direction, as a finding against the contract or the
implementation. No cell is a licence to ignore an outcome.
Notable entries the table now owns rather than leaving open: M1 fails gate 8,
since the refusal is what that gate reads for; M8 fails gate 8 as its only
signature and must break nothing behavioural; M6a and M6b both fail gate 12
because a call site is gone; t8c, t8d, u5 and pin 8's four all survive M1
because they carry members: [] so the refusal never fires for them.
Cells carrying a reason -- t8d under M2, t9 under M1 -- are derivations from
pins not yet executed, stated so they can be falsified. That is the division of
labour the finding asks for: the contract predicts, execution measures, and a
mismatch is a finding against whichever is wrong. The table has no totals, so
it avoids the stale-count class entirely.
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
2a445d16be