Whole-artifact review of 2a445d1 returned one blocking finding: the table named
required survivors without requiring them to be run.
§6 consumed mutation output generally and no cell specifically -- t8c, t8d, u5,
pin 8's four, the structural gates -- and only M6 required its sibling's
verdict. "Report any mismatch" cannot detect a survivor that was never run: an
unrun test yields no mismatch and no evidence, so every survivor cell was an
unobserved claim, and the table read as evidential while being advisory.
One uniform rule now governs every mutation:
1. full cargo test --workspace, with the COMPLETE observed failure set
reported;
2. the named failing tests' output, per the channel rules -- behaviour, not
the fact of failure;
3. each named required survivor's PASS VERDICT, by name;
4. each named structural gate's output -- gate 8 under M1 and M8, gate 12
under M6a/M6b, pin 10's guards under M7a/M7b.
An omitted named artifact is itself a finding, on the same footing as a wrong
outcome. §6 item 1 consumes the rule. M6's per-half list is now marked as the
general rule applied rather than a special case.
This is revision D's class -- a requirement nothing can fail -- reproduced by
the very table written to end the discovery model. Round 7 moved authorship of
the expected outcome from execution to the contract, which was right, and left
the outcome unobserved. A claim the contract owns is not thereby a claim
anything checks.
The finding also forced a distinction left implicit. The survivors column said
"notable", quietly meaning not exhaustive, so a uniform "run every named
survivor" rule had to say what IS exhaustive. Now stated: the MUST-fail column
is exhaustive, verified by requirement 1's full-suite run; the survivors column
is illustrative, naming the ones a reader would doubt, and everything outside
the failing column must survive whether named or not. Without the full-suite
run the failing column's completeness was unverified as well, so the fix closes
a second hole the finding did not name.
Three rounds running have the same shape: round 6 wrote a rule and exempted
three mutations, round 7 wrote a table and left it unrun, round 8 makes the
table evidential. Each fix was correct about what to specify and incomplete
about who observes it.
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
942f261094