epiphany/spec/CONTRACT_P13S27_REDUCTION_AUTHORITY.md

Contract — P13-S27: the reduction version gets an outside witness

Status: RATIFIED 2026-08-08, on the authority of the repository owner, after nineteen adversarial review rounds — the last of which returned zero findings. DISPATCHED for execution. Which rounds closed, what each found, and the running tally are the history table below; this line does not restate them, having gone stale in two consecutive rounds by doing so.

THE PINS ARE FROZEN. They may be executed, not edited. A defect found during execution is reported, not patched in place — if it needs a pin change, that is its own amendment with its own review round.

IMPLEMENTED 2026-08-09, STAGED, and NOT YET ACCEPTED. The first independent review of the staged execution returned five findings, three blocking, all carried by post-ratification amendment 1 (below). That amendment took the pin changes the findings required — §0.4's missing constructor surface, four touch rows, and a ruling on production_caps's visibility — and therefore needs another independent pass before completion is accepted. The work remains staged; nothing is committed.

Round 1's ratification was WITHDRAWN, and the distinction matters. It was claimed on 2026-08-07 after a single round; round 2 then found four more blocking defects against the supposedly frozen text, two introduced by round 1's own amendments. A ratification that a subsequent round falsifies that quickly was not a ratification. This one rests on a different footing: 19 rounds, 65 findings, 47 blocking, and a clean independent round at the end.

What ratification does NOT settle, stated at the top so it is not missed:

• M7's authority/base leg is unverifiable until this rung is implemented — BundleCapabilities and CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION are its own deliverables. It is an execution requirement.
• Every gate, test and mutation is specified and none has been run. Nineteen rounds went into the claim that they can be run and that their results would be evidential. Execution is what tests that claim.
• The execution report is subject to independent review before completion is accepted — required by the owner at dispatch, and specifically covering M7's three observations and its control. The document's quality came from the independent rounds; the report gets the same treatment.

One narrow, explicit exception to "no execution work" — granted 2026-08-08

SUPERSEDED BY RATIFICATION. This exception was granted while execution was prohibited outright; full execution is now authorised under §6. It is retained as the record of what the scratch probe was permitted to do and what it produced — its result falsified round 10 and is cited throughout M7 — not as a live constraint. The probe's standing is unchanged: evidence for M7's prerequisite, and not a demonstration of laundering, because it carried no base.

Granted before use, because the prohibition below is otherwise absolute. Authorised: a bounded mechanical probe of M7's experiment, on a disposable branch or worktree, for the sole purpose of producing evidence for the next review round.

Scope — what is authorised:

• Only M7's mechanics, and only the part runnable against the tree as it stands: whether a base-free Bundle → text → Bundle round trip reproduces the original image() bytes. That is M7's load-bearing assumption after round 10, and it is the thing four paper designs never established.
• The exact result and the complete diff are recorded, then the branch is discarded. Nothing merges.

Scope — what is NOT authorised, and is not a judgement call:

• No S27 implementation. No BundleCapabilities, no capabilities(), no pin 3a validation, no CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild, none of tests 1–10b.
• No staging or commit on main beyond this contract's own amendment rows.
• No pin, test, gate, mutation or touch-table change arising from the probe without its own review round. The probe produces evidence, not amendments.
• No canonical base anywhere — the live constraint (§1.2) is untouched, which is exactly why the probe is base-free.

Why the probe cannot cover M7 in full, which is itself evidence for round 11. BundleCapabilities and CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION do not exist in the tree — they are S27's own deliverables. M7 step 1 requires a base committed under the real authority, so M7 as written cannot be executed until S27 has landed. M7 is a mutation of this rung's own implementation, and mutations run after the rung, not before it. The probe therefore tests the round-trip machinery M7 depends on, not M7.

A base-free probe removes no refusals at all — both project_text_document (project.rs:580) and serialize_document (serialize.rs:151) gate on canonical_base.is_some(). So the probe touches none of pin 3b's guards and cannot leave one unrestored.

What the probe decides. If base-free round-tripping is not byte-identical, M7's whole-image comparison is unsound regardless of bases, and round 10's fix is wrong too. If it is, the comparison design survives its first contact with the code and only the base leg remains unverified — pending S27.

Probe RESULT — run 2026-08-08 on a discarded branch. It falsified round 10.

Verdict: the round trip is byte-preserving, but ONLY from a fixed point — and round 10's comparison did not compare from one.

Case	original already a fixed point?	Round 10's comparison	From the fixed point
minimal, seed 42	yes	equal (1641 B)	equal
minimal, seed 99	no	not run	equal (1800 B)
with one extension	no	295 differing bytes from offset 352	equal (1894 B)

Round 10's design compared A against a B built from the input document, which is only valid when that document is already a fixed point of document_from_bundle ∘ serialize_document. minimal_document(42) happens to be one — which is why the first probe passed and would have been reported as success. Two of three documents were not, and the extension case diverged by 295 bytes.

The non-idempotent field is envelopes, not extensions. Diagnosed field-by-field: document_id, manifest_schema_version, lineage_id, profiles, canonical_base, blobs and extensions — including every TextChunk payload — all survive exactly. document_from_bundle applies a canonical envelope ordering (its own test is named document_from_bundle_reads_every_section_and_orders_envelopes_canonically), so a document whose envelopes arrive in any other order is not a fixed point, and its operation-block bytes differ.

project_text_document → parse_document is LOSSLESS: b_doc == d held in every case. The text leg was never the problem. The defect was entirely in which artifact round 10 chose as the reference.

What M7 must therefore add — for round 11 to ratify, not for this probe to assume: an explicit fixed-point normalisation and assertion before any byte comparison — build B from document_from_bundle(serialize_document(doc)), and assert that document is a fixed point — because otherwise a mismatch is round 10's own "third category", a deterministic setup difference, and unclassifiable.

Probe hygiene, recorded because the discipline demands it: the comparison was mutation-verified — giving A a different FileUuid produced 20 differing bytes at offsets 32–47 and 60–63, observed, then restored by hand-editing. (Incidentally confirming round 9's finding: FixedHeader.file_uuid is byte-visible at offset 32, and round 8's enumeration had omitted it.) The probe touched one file, 142 insertions, all inside #[cfg(test)]; removed no refusal (CanonicalBaseUnsupported occurrences unchanged at 7 and 8); carried no canonical base, so §1.2 was never engaged; and the branch was deleted. The diff was captured before deletion.

The methodological point, stated plainly. Four paper rounds refined this comparison and none found that it silently depended on an unstated precondition. One execution found it in minutes, and found it via the case a 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.

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 restructured twice to stop it. Every amendment is a row. There is no separate amendment count, deliberately: round 5 turned the review totals into a table and left the amendment tally as prose immediately above it, which went stale in the same edit that fixed its neighbour. The amendment count is the number of rows — read it off, do not restate it.

Amendment	Findings	Blocking	Independent review?
pin 10 — the unsatisfiable escape clause	—	—	no
round 1	9	4	no — same agent as the author
round 2	6	4	no — same agent as the author
round 3	6	4	yes
round 4	5	4	yes
round 5	4	2	yes
round 6	3	3	yes
round 7	3	3	yes
round 8	2	2	yes
round 9	2	2	yes
round 10	1	1	yes
scratch probe	1 falsification	—	execution, not review
round 11	3	2	yes
round 12	2	2	yes
round 13	1	1	yes
round 14	1	1	yes
round 15	1	1	yes
round 16	4	4	yes
round 17	10	5	authored-side scan
round 18	2	2	yes
round 19	0	0	yes — first clean round
execution review 1	5	3	yes — against the staged tree
Total	70	50	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 and 4 while the very tables recording those rounds sat below it. That is the count-staleness defect for the fifth time, and this time in the status block the author edited in every single round. It is now a table, so a new round adds a row rather than requiring a number to be found and re-derived.

Which rounds were independent is the table's "Independent review?" column, and is not restated in prose. A sentence here read "rounds 3, 4 and 5 were independent" from round 5 until round 7, going stale the moment round 6 closed — the third consecutive round to find a claim duplicated in prose beside the table that owns it. Every independent round so far has found blocking defects in the amendments written to fix its predecessor; that fact is read off the table, not maintained separately.

Review round 3 — 2026-08-07, independent, against b842975. Confirmed b741e48 as status prose only, then returned six findings, four blocking. Every blocking finding was a defect in text rounds 1 and 2 wrote.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	Pin 3a still carried the rationale round 2 retracted — §0.4 says there is no in-tree production base writer, pin 3a said "§0.4 shows production code minting a stale document." The contract asserted a claim and its negation	Pin 3a's rationale rewritten onto the public-API footing. Third occurrence of fix-one-site-leave-the-others
2	M5a had no observation mechanism. Pin 3 required the capability be stored, nothing exposed it; Bundle has 17 public accessors and none for capabilities	Bundle::capabilities() pinned — new scope, flagged for round 4
3	M5b could not fail. If the supplied capability and the base version both derive from the constant — the natural implementation — both operands move together. This is §0.1's tautology reproduced inside the mutation built to detect it	Base version must come from a source that does not track the authority: persisted artifact or deliberate literal, with both operands' provenance reported
4	M6's replacement named a scenario with no test. Test 6 stops at opening; nothing asserted that an unrelated commit succeeds, so an implementation rejecting every post-base commit passed tests 2/5/6/8 and the broadening had nothing to break	Test 9 added
5	Touch row 7 listed generators.rs as "call sites, real authority" — it has zero Bundle::open/create calls, and its rng.range(0, 8) versions are exactly the arbitrary wire values pin 3b assigns to synthetic capabilities	Split to row 7a, with its actual (conditional) change stated
6	§7 credited the call-site correction to round 1; rounds 1 and 2 are both load-bearing	Attribution fixed

The pattern across three rounds is now legible, and it is not about counts. Round 1 found stale text. Round 2 found unexecutable mutations. Round 3 found that three separate mutations were unrunnable in three different ways — M5a could not observe, M5b could not fail, M6 had nothing to break. Writing a mutation is easy; establishing that it can run requires deriving its observation, its failure condition, and the test it breaks, and none of the three was done. §7 item 4a now demands all three.

Review round 4 — 2026-08-07, independent, against 53292f6. Five findings, four blocking. It judged pin 3's accessor bounded — the first piece of new text any round has accepted — and the M5 pair defective again.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	M5b cited the wrong value. roundtrip.rs:367 is in assert_score_serialization_stable (:332) and versions an acceleration snapshot, not the canonical base. assert_reduction_serialization_stable has no base at all — pin 3c suspended it	Evidence corrected. The tautology diagnosis stands; only its evidence was wrong
2	M5b left the instrument unchosen — it said "the rung picks one" and named two, one of which does not exist for the nominated crate: craft_image_with_base is private to epiphany-bundle's test module (:1648)	Chosen: commit-then-reopen through public API only
3	M5b had no test that could assert the error fields. assert_reduction_serialization_stable returns () and reopens with .expect (:292) — a mismatch panics and cannot match CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild { base, current }	Test 10b added, named and returning a matchable Result
4	M5a violated §7 item 4a — the rule round 3 added in the same edit. It named no test, and its natural assertion (capabilities() == CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION) compares the constant with itself and cannot fail	Test 10a added; the comparison is now against a deliberate literal
—	Status prose said the pins were open to round 3's findings after round 3 closed	Now "the current round's"

Round 3's error is the one to carry. It grepped ReductionAlgorithmVersion across testkit/src/, saw a roundtrip.rs hit, and attributed it to the function it was already thinking about without resolving the enclosing item — the same shape as §0.4's .commit( miscount, which round 1 recorded as a lesson and round 3 then repeated. Recording a defect is not the same as not committing it.

And both M5 halves failed the same way twice. Round 3 diagnosed M5b's tautology and wrote M5a with an identical tautology in the same edit, then added §7 item 4a and immediately violated it. A rule written and broken in one sitting is evidence the author is pattern-matching the finding rather than applying it.

Review round 5 — 2026-08-08, independent, against df9e528. Four findings, two blocking — the first round where blocking findings fell below four.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	The status history was numerically stale again — "amended three times … fifteen findings so far, eight blocking" were round-2 figures, left standing through rounds 3 and 4 while the tables recording those rounds sat directly below	Replaced with a table, so a round adds a row instead of requiring a number to be re-derived. Fifth occurrence of count-staleness, this time in the block edited every round
2	Test 10b could not make M5b's two-field assertion. §3 said only "assert it opens"; under mutation that yields a bare Err or a panic, and a #[test] -> Result returning Err asserts nothing about that error's fields	Both Result arms pinned, plus a third for the wrong-error case
3	M5b's "cannot be tidied" claim was false. Keeping synthetic_for_fixture while passing the constant as both its argument and the base version preserves the fixture and fully restores the tautology	Retracted. The protection is §7 item 4b, not the structure
4	§3's preamble still said the tests were "in epiphany-bundle" after round 4 added two that cannot be	Corrected, with each test's touch-table home named

Finding 3 is the one to carry. Round 4 asserted a structural guarantee that did not hold, and in doing so undercut the procedural check actually doing the work. That is the same error as reasoning that a mutation would fail instead of running it: a guarantee that has not been tested against the edit it is supposed to prevent is a hope.

Review round 6 — 2026-08-08, independent, against 03c85dd. Three findings, all three blocking, and all three were in text round 5 wrote.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	The amendment tally went stale in the block round 5 restructured to stop exactly that. Round 5 turned the review totals into a table and left "amended five times … rounds 1–4" as prose immediately above it	The amendment count is now the number of rows. There is no separate figure to go stale
2	§3's test-home correction was itself false. Round 5 wrote "tests 1–9 in epiphany-bundle"; test 7 is assert_reduction_serialization_stable, which the same section names as testkit/src/roundtrip.rs	Replaced with a per-crate table. Two wrong versions of this sentence, both written while fixing it
3	§7 item 4b protected one operand where test 10b has two. Replacing both synthetic_for_fixture(0) and the base's ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0) with the constant preserves the synthetic call and restores the tautology — and the Err arm never runs in the unmutated case, so its literal cannot detect it	Item 4b now enumerates all three operands individually and requires each quoted verbatim

All three are the same defect wearing different clothes: a fix applied to the site named rather than to every site the claim covers. Round 5 fixed the review tally and not the amendment tally beside it; corrected a test-home range without checking each member; and retracted a structural guarantee while writing its procedural replacement too narrowly to deliver what the retraction promised. This is now the sixth count-staleness defect in six rounds and the third range-correction that did not check its own range.

The mechanism that keeps working is structural, not vigilant. The review totals stopped going stale when they became a table; the amendment count did not, because it stayed prose. Item 4b stopped being under-specified when it became an enumerated table. Where a round is tempted to write a number or a range, it should write a table instead — that has now been demonstrated three times.

Demonstrated a fourth time, inside this very amendment. Round 6's first draft of the table above ended its Total row with "6 amendments" — a free-standing count, written three paragraphs after the sentence declaring that the count is the number of rows and that no separate figure exists to go stale. It was already wrong: seven rows, not six. It was caught before commit and replaced with "one amendment per row", which is not a number at all.

This is the seventh instance, and it is the most instructive, because the author had just written the rule, in the same file, in the same edit, and broke it anyway. The lesson is not "be careful with counts." It is that prose invites a number and a table does not — so the defence has to be the shape of the artifact, never the attention of whoever is editing it.

Review round 7 — 2026-08-08, independent, against c0d896c. Three findings, all blocking. All three were the same defect: a claim living in two places and fixed in one.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	§7 item 4a was unsatisfiable. It required every mutation to name "the test it breaks", while item 1 four paragraphs above says M4 is observed to compile and M7's expected outcome is success. A report obeying 4a literally could not be written	4a is now a table of what each mutation owes, with M4 and M7 carved out explicitly
2	Round 6's three-literal correction reached §7 and not §3. §3 still said "both literals … tidying either", so the contract carried the fixed and the broken version of the same claim	§3 no longer states the count. It points at item 4b, the single home
3	"Rounds 3, 4 and 5 were independent" went stale the moment round 6 closed, sitting in prose beside the table whose column already records it	Deleted. Read the table's column

Three rounds, one lesson, finally applied. Round 5 fixed the review totals and not the amendment tally beside them. Round 6 fixed item 4b and not §3's copy of the same rule. Round 7 found the classification sentence duplicating the table's own column. The defect is duplication, and every previous remedy was vigilance — "check the other sites too" — which has now failed three rounds running.

The remedy adopted here is deletion, not diligence: where a claim had two homes, one is removed and replaced with a pointer. §3 no longer counts the literals; the history block no longer classifies the rounds. A copy that cannot drift is one that does not exist.

Review round 8 — 2026-08-08, independent, against 9829ae3. Two findings, both blocking. The first round to reach into a mutation's mechanics rather than its bookkeeping.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	M7 did not describe a runnable observation. It said to construct a TextDocument, which bypasses parse_document entirely — so the parser refusal it ordered removed was irrelevant, and the demonstration was not the import laundering it is named for. project_text_document is the export direction (&TextDocument -> Result<String,_>) and is not on the path at all, so "all three sides, since removing one leaves the others refusing" was false for it. And "byte-indistinguishable from one whose base was genuinely validated" named no comparison artifact and no comparison method	Input must be text, parsed. (Everything else round 8 specified here — which refusals are removed, the comparison artifact, the comparison method — was superseded by rounds 9 and 10. Read M7; this cell records what round 8 decided, not what the contract now says.)
2	The round-7 deduplication was incomplete — the status block still carried "rounds 3 and 4 are closed" while declaring the history table the sole authority	Deleted

Finding 1 is the most substantive of any round, because every earlier one was about text agreeing with other text. This one is about whether the experiment runs at all — and it did not. M7 has been in the contract since round 1 and survived seven reviews, including three that specifically re-derived mutations, because reading it never required tracing what calls what. An observation stated in the right register can look complete for a long time.

"Indistinguishable" was a conclusion, not an observation — the exact failure mode this rung exists to eliminate, sitting inside its own demonstration since round 1.

Review round 9 — 2026-08-08, independent, against 01e76d1. Two findings, both blocking, both in M7's comparator — the text round 8 had just rewritten.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	Test 10b is not a "genuinely validated" reference. Its write-side capability is synthetic_for_fixture(0); only its reopen uses the real authority. M7 would have compared one synthetic fixture against another, with the validated half of the claim simply absent	M7 now builds its own reference in epiphany-testkit: commit a base under caps derived from the real constant, so pin 3a validates it on the way in
2	The field enumeration could not support its conclusion. It claimed "everything that could carry provenance" while omitting FixedHeader.file_uuid — the field it required to match — plus the superblock's generation, manifest_offset, manifest_length, manifest_hash, and the manifest outside canonical_base	Replaced with whole-image() byte comparison, with any difference enumerated and classified rather than assumed

Finding 1 is a collision between two of this contract's own designs, not a typo. Round 4 made test 10b synthetic-on-write deliberately, so M5b's two operands would be provably independent — and that is precisely what disqualifies it as a validated reference. One artifact cannot be both independent of the real authority and committed under it. Round 8 reused a fixture by name without re-reading what it had been built to be, which is a failure mode no amount of care about wording would have caught.

Finding 2 retires a technique, not just an instance. A hand-written list of "every field" is a claim about a struct's contents that is wrong the moment the struct changes — and this one was wrong the day it was written, omitting the very field it depended on. Comparing the whole artifact cannot be incomplete. That is the tables-over-numbers lesson applied to the experiment rather than the prose: let the artifact defend itself instead of enumerating it correctly.

Three further sites were found by the author while amending — §7 item 6 still said "M7's three text refusals" (surviving round 8's correction of that exact count in two other places), §7 item 4a's M7 row still named the superseded method, and round 8's own disposition cell stated it as current. All now point at M7 rather than restating it.

Review round 10 — 2026-08-08, independent, against 0efd543. One finding, blocking — the smallest round yet, and again in M7.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	The whole-image comparison had no complete construction alignment. Round 9 listed four things to align; serialize_document also fixes document_id, lineage_id, profile_declarations, every extension field and preserved chunk, envelope payloads, staging order, manifest major and epoch_max, and every chunk ref/hash/offset derived from them. A byte difference would therefore have had a third possible cause — "the reference was built differently" — which is neither permitted classification, making the result unclassifiable and the comparison meaningless	M7 is now a round trip: B validated under the real authority → exported to text → parsed → re-serialized as A → images compared. Alignment is inherited, not enumerated

This is the third hand-enumerated "complete set" in this contract, and the third to be wrong on the day it was written — "every field that could carry provenance" (round 8), "every field to align" (round 9), and now round 9's alignment list again. The rule earned across rounds 5–10 is one rule: where a claim requires completeness, do not enumerate — derive. Tables instead of counts, whole artifacts instead of field lists, and now a single shared origin instead of an alignment list.

Deriving A from B eliminates the setup-mismatch category by construction rather than by care, which is the only reason whole-image equality can mean anything. It also makes M7 the realistic threat: export a validated document to text, re-import it, and observe that the re-imported container is indistinguishable from the original — having validated only the base's number, never its provenance.

Two further sites were caught by the author while amending: the "restore the two removed refusals" instruction, whose count round 10's restructure invalidated for the third time (hence no count is stated now), and round 8's disposition cell still reading as current.

Review round 11 — 2026-08-08, independent, against 39f2617 (post-probe). Three findings, two blocking. It confirmed the probe contained and its fixed-point result decisive, and kept M7 blocked.

#	Finding	Disposition
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
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
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

Finding 2 is the one with consequences beyond M7. M7's 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.

Review round 12 — 2026-08-08, independent, against 74dc994. Two findings, both blocking. Both are the same defect: a requirement stated without the decision it requires, leaving execution to make a design choice silently.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	The convergence loop was not actually bounded. It said "bound the loop and fail if it does not converge" and named no limit, so execution would choose when non-convergence becomes failure — changing what the experiment means	Bound pinned at one normalising step (n = 1, computing at most B₁ and B₂), with an outcome table and hard failure on B₂ != B₁
2	M7's location was unchosen. "In a crate that can reach the real constant" is true of two crates and decisive for neither — and render_text_document is pub(crate) to epiphany-textproj, so epiphany-testkit could only host M7 via an unpinned visibility change to another crate's public API	Harness pinned to epiphany-textproj, under existing touch row 9. render_text_document stays pub(crate)

The bound is one step because that is a property, not a tolerance. document_from_bundle canonicalises, so serialize_document ∘ document_from_bundle must reach its canonical form in one application. If it does not, there is no canonical form and M7 is invalid as a whole — so B₂ != B₁ is a reportable finding about the projection, not a signal to iterate again. A loop that runs until it happens to settle tests nothing; it reports how long it took.

Finding 2 would have been discovered by execution as a wall, not a decision — and the natural improvisation is to widen render_text_document. Handoff §1.3 records that function as the one intentional hole in the text refusal, existing solely so a negative vector can carry the spelling it asserts is refused. Widening it to host a mutation that gets reverted would leave a permanently widened public surface behind, which is how a temporary harness becomes an API change nobody ratified.

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.

Review round 14 — 2026-08-08, independent, against f579172. One finding, blocking — a contradiction round 13 created.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	The comparison method still said equal images "complete the observation and require nothing further" — written in round 9 when byte equality was all of M7, and not swept when round 13 added the control. The contract simultaneously required the control and licensed omitting it, with the permissive sentence sitting earlier, reading as the summary	Equality is now necessary but not sufficient — observation 1 of three, with the control still required. The paragraph specifies how to compare, never what suffices

A second instance was found while amending, and round 14 reported none. The "informative in both directions" note read "if every field matches, the refusal is justified" — the same sufficiency claim in different words, and still carrying round 8's "every field" vocabulary that round 9 had replaced with whole-image comparison. A search for "nothing further" or "sufficient" cannot reach a sentence that says "matches". That is exactly the defect CLAUDE.md names — searching one spelling and concluding about all sites — encountered inside the fix for a sweep failure. Neither the reviewer's search nor the author's first search found it; a third pass on different terms did.

The round-13 lesson generalises further than round 13 stated. It is not only that a requirement must be swept to every site — it is that the permissive statement usually reads earlier than the restrictive one, because requirements accumulate downward as a document is amended. A reader following the document in order stops at the first sentence that says "done". Where a later round narrows what suffices, the earlier summary is the site most likely to contradict it and least likely to be searched.

Review round 15 — 2026-08-08, independent, against fa483cf. One finding, blocking — and it ran the scan rounds 13 and 14 left outstanding.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	M6 accepted "test 5 fails" and "test 9 fails" as its observations. A test fails for every reason, not only the one under test — an unrelated writer rejection satisfies both exactly as well as the intended cause, so M6 could report success while demonstrating nothing about pin 3a's scope	Both halves now require the mutated outcome itself: test 5's stale commit observed to succeed and reopen at the new generation; test 9's unchanged inherited-base commit observed rejected specifically by the broadened rule

Historical disposition — FALSIFIED IN ROUND 16. Round 15 reported that the scan was complete and that M1–M5b survived it while M6 did not. Round 16 re-derived those entries and found M1–M3 and M5a still accepting a broken assertion as evidence. The text is retained as the round-15 disposition, not as a current conclusion.

The principle, stated once so it need not be rediscovered: the evidence a mutation owes is the behaviour it changed, not the assertion it broke. A broken assertion is a symptom with many possible causes; the changed behaviour has one. Every mutation in §4 now names an outcome, not a failure.

Review round 16 — 2026-08-08, independent, against a230c6f. Four findings, all blocking. Round 15 applied its rule to M6 only, while its own new rule claimed to cover every mutation.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	M1 still accepted test 2 failing. An unrelated open error could break the assertion after the pin-5 comparison was removed	Require the stale, self-consistent base to be observed opening successfully under the mismatching capability
2	M2 still accepted test 3 failing. Any non-malformed result could do that, without showing that corruption was reclassified as staleness	Require the corrupt fixture to be observed returning CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild, with both fields reported
3	M3 still accepted test 4 failing. Any error on either no-base open could satisfy it	Require the base-free fixture to be observed rejected by the wrongly widened check under the deliberately mismatching capability, with the error fields reported
4	M5a still accepted test 10a failing. A serialization failure would satisfy it without showing the production path read the changed authority	Require the returned bundle's stored capability to be observed equal to the deliberately changed authority

M4 and M5b survive this correction. M4's changed behaviour is compilation; M5b already requires its specific error and both fields. M6 and M7 already name their changed outcomes. The round-15 claim that the scan was complete is retained above as the review's historical disposition, not silently rewritten.

The rule now has its actual scope: for each mutation, report the intended changed behaviour itself; the named test's broken assertion is supporting evidence, never sufficient evidence. The contract remains NOT RATIFIED, NOT DISPATCHABLE, pins open, and no execution work is authorised.

Convergence assessment, stated against interest. The history table is the authority for the sequence and totals. No review round has returned zero. Round 16 also falsified round 15's claim that its scan was complete, so no ratification inference may be drawn from the recent smaller rounds alone.

Round 17 — 2026-08-08, the §3/§5 sweep. Ten findings, five blocking. Round 13's question had been asked of §4 only. This applied it to the two sections that had never had it, and both yielded on first contact.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	Gate 6's derive alternative can never match. Verified by running the exact regex: grep is line-oriented, so [[:space:]]* cannot cross the newline rustfmt puts between #[derive(…, Default)] and pub struct BundleCapabilities. The likelier violation returns 0 matches and the gate passes — and gate 6 is the sole mechanical guard on pin 3's prohibition	Replaced with three checks, one of which (quote the definition verbatim) cannot pass vacuously
2	Gate 6a is vacuous under a rename. Pin 3b offered synthetic_for_fixture as an example ("e.g."); the gate greps for that exact literal	Name pinned in pin 3b; gate 6a must confirm the actual name before trusting its zero
3	Gates 2 and 3 named no toolchain, in a repo whose CI comment records 1.95/1.97 lint divergence and whose default stable is 1.97.1	Both pinned to cargo +1.95.0; toolchain reported with the result
4	Gate 4's "staged list exactly §2" is unsatisfiable — row 12 is conditional and 7a may not change	Subset both ways: every staged path in §2, every §2 row staged or named unused with its reason
5	Tests 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 can all pass on a base-free bundle. Pin 5 makes base-free the permissive case, so a fixture that silently loses its base makes each pass trivially — test 1 degenerates into test 4	One rule stated once: each MUST assert canonical_base.is_some() on the bundle under test
6	Tests 1 and 6 asserted the same outcome with no stated distinction	Kept distinct, with construction routes pinned — hand-built vs commit-path. The probe showed construction changes bytes, so two routes is coverage, not redundancy. If they collapse in practice, that is a finding
7	Test 4's "two different caps values" never asserted distinct	Inequality asserted, and the base-free precondition made explicit
8	Gate 1 required "full pass" but not 0 ignored — an #[ignore]d test satisfies it while never running	Ignored count reported, must be 0 against the measured 1570/0/0 baseline
9	Gate 7 gave no method for "no schema major/minor moved"	Method pinned: quote the constants and show the diff empty
10	Gate 5 named no dependency tables	All three quoted — a dev-dependency would create the cycle pin 1 forbids

The unifying defect is that a gate proving absence is only as strong as the string it searches for. Findings 1, 2 and 9 are three faces of it: a regex that cannot match, a name that was an example, and a clause with no method at all. Every one reported success while checking nothing. The remedy applied throughout is the same as §4's: require an artifact to be quoted and read, not a pattern to be matched — a definition, a table, a command's output.

Findings 5–7 are §3's version of the same thing: a test asserting a permissive outcome passes when its fixture degenerates into the permissive case. That is not hypothetical — base-bearing fixtures have been the awkward ones to build for this whole interval, so degenerating is the path of least resistance.

This round was authored-side, not independent, and it is recorded as such in the table. It found more than any round since the first, in the two sections nobody had scanned. There is now no unscanned section: §0 through §7 have all been swept or amended. That is the first time that has been true — and it is a statement about coverage, not a claim that the sections are clean. Treat "dispatchable" as a claim requiring evidence of convergence, not a status reached by running out of findings.

Review round 18 — 2026-08-08, independent, against the uncommitted round-17 sweep. Two findings, both blocking, both in round 17's new §3 text.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	The base-presence rule demanded the opposite of what test 8 is for. It required is_some() before the commit for tests 8 and 9 alike — but test 8 introduces the base, so it must start is_none(). Requiring otherwise makes it unsatisfiable, or satisfiable by a fixture that already has a base, in which case the commit introduces nothing and the test asserts nothing	Rule split into a per-test table: 1/6/7 is_some() before; 8 is_none() before, is_some() after; 9 is_some() both, base unchanged
2	Test 6's construction was self-contradictory. Round 17 assigned it the commit path while also requiring its fixture to "arrive the way" its ancestor's did — and that ancestor, opening_a_major_1_bundle_that_already_carries_a_base_is_refused (bundle.rs:1866), hand-builds via craft_image_with_base at :1869	Routes swapped: test 6 hand-built, test 1 commit-path. That makes the attribution true instead of deleting it

Finding 1 came from grouping by mechanism instead of by purpose. Tests 8 and 9 were bracketed together as "the ones that commit" — which is true and irrelevant. Test 8 commits a base into a bundle that has none; test 9 commits something unrelated to a base already there. They are opposites that share a verb, and a rule written from the verb inverted one of them.

Finding 2 is the round-17 sweep's own version of the citation defect this contract keeps producing: an attribution asserted without opening the file it attributes to. Reading :1866 takes one command, and it says craft_image_with_base in plain sight.

Both were introduced by round 17 and neither pre-existed it — the authored-side sweep bought coverage of two unscanned sections at the cost of two new defects in what it wrote. That is the trade the history table now shows for every large amendment.

Post-ratification amendment 1 — 2026-08-09, on the first independent review of the STAGED EXECUTION. Five findings, three blocking. The pins were frozen at ratification, so these are an amendment with its own review round rather than patches — which is the discipline working as designed: execution reported, and review of the report found what nineteen paper rounds had not.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	§0.4 never counted Bundle::create_versioned — a third public constructor whose signature this rung changes, 3 sites, zero mentions across nineteen rounds. §0.4 searched open( and create( and concluded about "the writer surface"	Surface added to §0.4 and recorded as its fourth instrument failure — a count taken from one spelling, the same shape as the first three
2	Gate 4 correctly failed: four required files were in no touch row, and the staged patch alone cannot build. bundle/src/lib.rs (the re-export pin 3 makes unavoidable), gminor.rs, and the two crate-root helpers	Touch rows 13–16 added
3	production_caps() was unpinned design scope, not merely a missed path — and in epiphany-testkit it landed as new public API	Ruled under pin 3b: sanctioned, name pinned, visibility pinned per crate — pub(crate) in the production crate, pub in the test-support crate whose tests and benches are external consumers. The direct-construction alternative is recorded as considered and rejected
4	Row 12 named one counter; a label addition necessarily moves three — core requirements, suite requirements, suite labels	Row 12 amended to name all three, with the line numbers
5	The new writer comment was false. It said self.manifest.canonical_base "is always None here", but test 9 deliberately performs an unrelated second commit on an inherited Some base	Corrected in code. The contract itself never made this claim — §7 item 10 says "stale inherited base", which is exactly right

Finding 5 is the one to carry, because it is a false rationale attached to correct behaviour. The check does the right thing; the comment justified it with a reachability claim that a test in the same rung disproves. What actually holds is narrower: an inherited base can be present, but never stale — open refuses a stale one and create refuses a base-bearing manifest. So narrowing pin 3a to "any stale inherited base" is unobservable, while broadening it to "any base-bearing commit" is very observable and wrong. The scope is forced on one axis and a real choice on the other, and the comment collapsed the two.

Finding 1 is the fourth instrument failure in one section, and its cost was finding 2: gminor.rs calls only create_versioned, so no surface count ever reached it, so no touch row existed, so gate 4 failed. The allowlist caught what the count missed — which is what an allowlist is for.

Review confirmed M7 internally coherent against the final tree: B_raw requiring one normalisation step matches the probe history, and the mismatched-base control reaches the staged writer check and produces the required error. No additional M7 contradiction found.

Status: the staged implementation is NOT accepted. This amendment needs another independent pass before it can be.

Review round 19 — 2026-08-08, independent, against the round-17/18 working tree. ZERO FINDINGS. The first clean round in nineteen.

It confirmed the per-test state table distinguishes test 8's base introduction from test 9's unrelated commit, that the route swap is consistent with craft_image_with_base's actual use in test 6's ancestor, and that the revised gate mechanics are internally consistent.

What a clean round does and does not establish. It is the criterion named at round 11 — "treat dispatchable as a claim requiring evidence of convergence, not a status reached by running out of findings" — and it is the first evidence of that kind this contract has produced. It is not proof of correctness. Round 19 reviewed the amendment rounds 17 and 18 produced; it did not re-derive the whole document, and no round has.

What remains open after ratification, and is not closed by it:

• M7's authority/base leg is unverifiable until S27 is implemented, by construction — BundleCapabilities and CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION are S27's own deliverables. It is an execution requirement, not a document gap, and the scratch probe is evidence for its prerequisite only. Do not cite the probe as having demonstrated laundering; it carried no base.
• Every gate, test and mutation is specified but none has been run. The contract's claim is that they can be run and that their results would be evidential — nineteen rounds went into that claim, and execution is what tests it.

The defect record, stated plainly so ratification is not read as vindication: 65 findings across 19 rounds, 47 blocking. Rounds 1 and 2 were authored-side and their ratification was withdrawn. Round 17 was authored-side and cost two defects round 18 caught. The document's quality comes from the rounds that were independent, and that is the argument for the execution report being reviewed the same way.

(Was: DRAFT, BLOCKED on the format-epoch rung, spec/CONTRACT_FORMAT_EPOCH_MAJOR1.md, which at the time was ratified and in implementation but had not yet landed. That rung landed at bc06706, with its pin-3b follow-up at be244df.)

Review round 1 — 2026-08-07, at 96b40b2. Run because this contract had reached "dispatchable" with zero ratification rounds on record, against a standing rule that contracts go through adversarial review before dispatch — the format-epoch rung had four, and its fourth is what produced pin 3c. What round 1 returned:

#	Finding	Disposition
1	Inherited obligation 2 was in neither §3 nor §4, though §3's preamble claimed all obligations were stated as tests	M7 added; ruled a mutation, not a capability restoration
2	§0.4's "commit has 57 sites (including 2 in epiphany-editor-core)" — that crate has no epiphany-bundle dependency and the word Bundle appears in its lib.rs zero times	Corrected; recorded as the third instrument failure in §0.4
3	§3's header, gate 1 and §7 items 1/2/4 each carried a stale count of the same lists	All replaced with "every item in §N"; gate 1 now reports three buckets
4	requirement_labels.rs absent from §2 while pin 9 may move CORE_REQUIREMENT_COUNT	Pin 9 must decide explicitly; touch row 12 added, conditional
5	Locators verified at 381c498; bc06706 grew bundle.rs by 338 lines	Correction table in §0; pin 5's own :396–:399 confirmed unmoved
6	Pin 2a cites vectors.rs:353/:363; the corpus was rebuilt to canonical_bases 2 → 0	Evidence updated; disposition unchanged
7	Bundle::open( is 60, not 57	§0.4 table corrected; create confirmed still 32
8	Gate 6a checked textproj only, while touch row 7 gives testkit the real authority	Scope widened to both
9	No commit-side positive test, though obligation 1 warns that converting one branch leaves a hole	Test 8 added

Review round 2 — 2026-08-07, at 39287f8. Run against the ratified and frozen contract, and it returned six more findings, four of them blocking. Round 1's ratification was premature; this is the round that should have followed it before dispatch.

#	Finding	Disposition
1	The call-site count was corrected in §0.4 only. The "Rung type" paragraph still said 57, and touch row 2 still said bundle.rs has 35 opens — a figure that was never bundle.rs alone (it was bundle.rs + fuzz.rs, which has its own row) and is now stale on top of that. Reconciliation was impossible	Both corrected to 60 / 23; row 5 now states fuzz.rs's 15 + 1 explicitly
2	§0.4 called project.rs:936 a production bundle writer. #[cfg(test)] starts at :630; every Bundle call in the file is below it	Struck. §0.4's correction stands on serialize.rs alone. Recorded as the fourth instrument failure in that section
3	M5 unexecutable. serialize_document refuses bases at serialize.rs:151, so its output is base-free, and pin 5 + test 4 require base-free bundles to open at any authority — the mutation cannot fail	Split into M5a (production wires the constant) and M5b (the authority is load-bearing where a base exists)
4	M6's second half unexecutable. open rejects a stale base, create rejects a base-bearing manifest (bundle.rs:234), commit validates what it emits — no caller can hold an open Bundle with a stale inherited base	Replaced: broaden pin 3a rather than narrow it. The unreachability is itself reported
5	Pin 3a's justification — "production code mints a self-consistent stale document" — is false in-tree. Zero production paths stage a base	Restated: pin 3a guards the public commit_versioned API, not an in-tree path
6	serialize.rs:157 is dead code, orphaned by the :151 guard	Recorded as a finding; explicitly not this rung's to repair

Two of round 2's findings were introduced by round 1, and that is the lesson worth carrying. Ruling M7's refusal permanent is what made M5 unexecutable, and adding test 8 on the write side did not come with a re-derivation of M6 against the same reachability. An amendment is a change to the system, not a patch to a line; the next round must re-derive every mutation against every ruling the previous round made, not only inspect the text it edited. Round 1's own §0.4 correction has the same shape: it verified one claim in a list and inherited its neighbours.

Pins 1 and 3–10 are settled and internally consistent. Pin 2a is resolved from outside (below); pin 2 is unchanged.

The pin 10 amendment, recorded here so it is not read as the original: pin 10 made P13-S16's opening conditional on pin 2a being "ratified and tested within this rung" — a condition that the only route pin 2a permitted, resolution from outside, could never satisfy. Ratification is now sourced correctly. The tested half is not waived: it is carried by this rung's inherited obligations rather than dropped. See pin 10.

Pin 2a is RESOLVED as of 2026-08-07 — from outside this rung, by that contract's pin 8, exactly as its prohibition required. Legacy bases are refused by container epoch, never by version arithmetic; see the resolution block under pin 2a. This contract additionally inherits three obligations from that rung (the two interim refusals it must convert to validation, M8's deferred laundering demonstration, and pin 3c's two suspended conformance assertions) — recorded in the same place.

Its dependency cleared when the format rung landed, not before — and that has now happened. This is no longer bounded analysis. Pin 2a's original prohibition stands for the record: it was never amended into a disposition from inside this contract, and the resolution above came from outside, which is exactly what the prohibition required.

Two senses of "dispatchable", disambiguated 2026-08-07 — this sentence previously used the wrong one. Unblocked means the dependency chain has cleared: true since bc06706. Dispatchable means ratified and frozen and therefore ready to execute: false, and see the status block. This rung is unblocked but not dispatchable. Round 1 read the first as the second, which is how it came to be ratified after a single round.

Rung type: capability + API change. No wire bytes move and no schema major or minor changes — BundleError has no discriminant and no encoder (bundle/src/error.rs), so a new variant is a pure Rust API change. What does change is Bundle::open's and Bundle::create's signatures, at 60 and 32 call sites. (Was "57 and 32". Corrected in review round 2 — round 1 corrected §0.4's table and left this spelling and touch row 2's untouched, which is the same one-path-of-several defect §1.7 of the handoff names.)

Now DOES unblock P13-S16, once it lands. This rung installs the authority and validates both read and write paths; S16's remaining precondition was pin 2a's legacy-base disposition, and that is resolved. The chain is therefore format-epoch rung → P13-S27 → P13-S16, with no open question left in it.

Rulings already made (2026-07-31), not re-opened here:

• Fork 1 → B, typed injected capability. A required capability carrying the current reduction version, with no bundle-local default: every caller consciously supplies the semantics it implements. Broadened from OpenCapabilities to BundleCapabilities in this revision, because it now governs creation and commit as well as opening.
• Fork 2 → outright rejection. A dedicated error, not read-only and not an integrity anomaly.

---

§0. What was verified before drafting

Read out of the working tree at 381c498. Every line number confirmed by reading the line.

Locators re-verified 2026-08-07 in review round 1, at 96b40b2. The format-epoch rung (bc06706) landed after 381c498 and grew bundle.rs by 338 lines, so the inline citations throughout this contract are as-of 381c498. This table is authoritative where the two disagree.

Cited	Actual at 96b40b2	Symbol
bundle.rs:989	:1024	fn reduction_version_for
bundle.rs:798	:833	commit_versioned's superblock stamp
bundle.rs:613–:621	:622ff	fn verify_canonical_chunks
bundle.rs:939	:974	fn profile_is_understood
bundle.rs:233–:240	:205ff	fn create (base-bearing refusal)
error.rs:253	:306	UnsupportedCanonicalChunkMajor
serialize.rs:119	:143	fn serialize_document
serialize.rs:212, :219–:222	:239ff	fn build_manifest
serialize.rs:347	:379	fn serialize_and_reopen
roundtrip.rs:241	:255	assert_reduction_serialization_stable
parse.rs:591	:603	unbounded u32 parse

Confirmed still exact, and not to be "corrected": bundle.rs:396–:399 (pin 5's own insertion point), :301 (open), :87 (SUPPORTED_PROFILE_MAJOR), :389 (UnsupportedProfile), ids.rs:289, generators.rs:1628/:1651.

0.1 The defect is a tautology, not an absence

reduction_version_for (bundle.rs:989) sets a new superblock's version from the canonical base's own self-report, unwrap_or_default() when there is no base. open (bundle.rs:396–:399) then rejects a bundle whose base's version disagrees with that superblock's. Both operands descend from the same source, so for any conformingly-written document the comparison is a tautology.

It is not vacuous — it catches a corrupt or tampered base whose version disagrees with its superblock, and that behaviour is preserved by pin 6. What it cannot catch is a valid stale base: one whose version was conformingly propagated from an earlier implementation. That is exactly the case core_spec.tex:11614–:11617 exists to prevent.

0.2 The project has this pattern twice, and both instances are the wrong shape here

• SUPPORTED_PROFILE_MAJOR (bundle.rs:87) → profile_is_understood (:939) → read-only + IntegrityAnomaly::UnsupportedProfile (:389).
• IntegrityAnomaly::UnsupportedCanonicalChunkMajor { schema_major } (error.rs:253ff).

Both are bundle-crate constants, and open(store: S) (bundle.rs:301) takes no capability parameter. Fork 1's ruling deliberately departs from this precedent, because a profile major and a schema major are visible in the container while reduction semantics are not: a bundle-crate constant would be a number the container crate cannot verify and a rung must remember to bump — the hand-maintained-parallel-table shape that produced P13-S15 and the four Push-4a literal sites.

0.3 The layering forces the split, and makes ids.rs:288 repairable

epiphany-bundle's only workspace dependency is epiphany-determinism. It cannot read a constant in epiphany-ops. So ids.rs:288–:289's claim that "the algorithm catalog itself lives in epiphany-ops" is not merely false — as written it is unimplementable from where the check must run.

Fork 1's ruling makes it true: the authoritative number lives in epiphany-ops, and the composing layer wraps it. epiphany-ops must NOT gain a dependency on epiphany-bundle merely to use the wrapper type — hence a plain u32 in epiphany-ops and the ReductionAlgorithmVersion wrapper constructed at the composition boundary.

0.4 The surface, and a correction to this contract's own first draft

The writer path is production, not test-only. An earlier draft of this section asserted the opposite and was wrong.

epiphany-textproj serializes a TextDocument into a bundle in production code: serialize_document (serialize.rs:119) creates a bundle and commits a manifest built by build_manifest (serialize.rs:212), which copies base.reduction_algorithm_version verbatim into a fresh SnapshotRef (:219–:222). commit_versioned then stamps the superblock from that same carried value via reduction_version_for (bundle.rs:798). project.rs:936 is a second production write path of the same shape.

CORRECTED 2026-08-07 in review round 2 — project.rs is NOT a production write path, and never was. #[cfg(test)] begins at project.rs:630. Every Bundle call in the file sits below it: Bundle::create at :983 and :1122, Bundle::open at :1147. :936 is an assertion inside a test. The serialize.rs half of this paragraph is correct — its Bundle::create (:155) and commit_versioned (:183) are above that file's #[cfg(test)] at :284 — so §0.4's correction stands on one example, not two.

The same slip reaches the open table below: both textproj entries there (serialize.rs:383, project.rs:1147) are also below their files' #[cfg(test)], so epiphany-textproj has zero production Bundle::open sites. The crate still counts 2 for signature-change purposes; it counts 0 for any argument about what production does.

Fourth instrument failure in this section. Round 1 checked the epiphany-editor-core claim in this paragraph and did not check its neighbours — verifying one claim in a list and inheriting the rest.

Pin 3a's justification, restated in review round 2. This paragraph used to conclude "production code mints a self-consistent stale document without ever calling open." That is no longer true in-tree. Checking every canonical_base: assignment above the #[cfg(test)] boundary in serialize.rs, project.rs and bundle.rs returns zero: the format rung's pin 3b closed the only in-tree path when it made serialize_document refuse a base-bearing document (serialize.rs:151), and create already rejected a base-bearing manifest (bundle.rs:234).

Pin 3a survives on a different and narrower footing, which it must now state: commit/commit_versioned are public API, and an out-of-tree caller can stage a canonical base directly without going through epiphany-textproj at all. The writer check guards that surface. It is no longer guarding an in-tree production path, because there is not one.

Consequence for M5, which round 1 did not follow through. If no production path stages a base, no production path is authority-load-bearing, and a mutation of the authority cannot break a production round trip. M5 was written against the old reading and is corrected in §4.

Method note, recorded because it is this rung's own subject matter. The false claim came from grep … canonical_base | head -14. The textproj hits were below the cut. A universal negative — "no production code anywhere" — was asserted from deliberately truncated evidence. This is the second instrument failure in this rung: the first searched for ReductionAlgorithmVersion( constructor calls and so could not see a path that propagates a value without constructing one. Both are the defect S27 exists to fix, committed while scoping it: an observation that cannot support the claim drawn from it.

Reader surface — 60 Bundle::open( sites across 10 files. (Was 57 at 381c498; the format-epoch rung added 3 in bundle.rs. Re-counted 2026-08-07 at 96b40b2.)

Crate	Sites
epiphany-bundle (bundle.rs 23, fuzz.rs 15)	38
epiphany-testkit (bundle_harness.rs 11, roundtrip.rs 4, benches/bundle.rs 2, tests/bundle_reopen.rs 1)	18
epiphany-textproj (serialize.rs, project.rs)	2
epiphany-bundle/tests/	2

Writer surface — 32 Bundle::create( sites: bundle.rs 11, testkit/roundtrip.rs 6, testkit/bundle_harness.rs 6, textproj/project.rs 2, bundle/tests/crash_recovery.rs 2, textproj/serialize.rs 1, testkit/tests/bundle_reopen.rs 1, testkit/benches/bundle.rs 1, bundle/tests/manifest_selection.rs 1, bundle/fuzz.rs 1. Re-counted 2026-08-07 at 96b40b2: still 32, and every per-file figure above still holds.

Writer surface, part two — 3 Bundle::create_versioned( sites. ADDED BY THE POST-RATIFICATION AMENDMENT, 2026-08-09, on a finding from execution.

bundle.rs 2 (:2326, :2367), testkit/gminor.rs 1 (:85).

This surface was missing from the contract entirely — zero mentions across nineteen review rounds. create_versioned is a third public constructor whose signature this rung changes, distinct from create (which delegates to it). §0.4 searched Bundle::open( and Bundle::create( and concluded about "the writer surface".

This is the fourth instrument failure recorded in this section, and the same shape as the first three: a count taken from one spelling and generalised. The first could not see a propagating path; the second asserted a universal negative from head-truncated output; the third resolved a method name without resolving its type; this one enumerated two of three constructors.

It is also the root cause of a touch-table gap. testkit/gminor.rs calls only create_versioned, so it never appeared in any surface count and therefore never got a touch row — found by gate 4 failing during execution, exactly as an allowlist should.

commit sites — pin 3's design keeps every one of them unchanged.

CORRECTED 2026-08-07 in review round 1. The claim this paragraph made was "commit has 57 sites (including 2 in epiphany-editor-core)", and the parenthetical is false. epiphany-editor-core depends on epiphany-core, epiphany-ops and epiphany-layout-ir — not on epiphany-bundle — and the string Bundle does not appear in its lib.rs at all. Its two hits are self.commit(...) (editor-core/src/lib.rs:1593, :1709), resolving to its own fn commit(&mut self, new: Vec<OperationEnvelope>) -> Result<EditOutcome, EditorError> (:1404). A textual .commit( grep counted a same-named method in a crate that cannot reach Bundle.

This is the third instrument failure recorded in this section, and it was committed in the same paragraph as the method note above. The first could not see a propagating path; the second asserted a universal negative from head- truncated output; this one resolved a method name without resolving the type it belongs to. Same defect, three shapes: an observation that cannot support the claim drawn from it. The executing agent MUST count Bundle-typed receivers, not the token .commit(.

Which capability each site supplies is NOT decided by crate dependency. epiphany-testkit and epiphany-textproj depend on epiphany-ops, but that does not mean every call site there should pass the real constant. Format and container fixtures that deliberately exercise arbitrary wire values — e.g. generators.rs:1628/:1651's rng.range(0, 8), and the committed text-projection vectors — MUST pass an explicitly named synthetic capability matching the fixture, so the test keeps testing what it was written to test. Only production composition paths wrap CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION. Pin 3b makes this a naming rule rather than a judgement call.

---

§1. Pins

Pin 1 — the authority is a plain u32 in epiphany-ops, with its discipline beside it.

pub const CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION: u32 = 0;

epiphany-ops MUST NOT gain a dependency on epiphany-bundle. The constant is a bare u32; the ReductionAlgorithmVersion wrapper is constructed by the composing layer (pin 3).

Its doc comment carries the bump discipline, in the shape of PLAN_GMINOR_SCHEMA_MINOR.md's epoch rules: any change to a canonical reduction verdict or to canonical reduced state MUST bump this constant and record the change here, with a dated list of bumps. State plainly that no mechanism can detect a semantics change — a golden test over reduction outputs can prompt the question, never answer it — so the discipline is the guarantee.

Pin 2 — the initial value is 0, and this is a decision, not a placeholder. Bundles written to date carry 0 when they have no base, and bases self-report whatever they were stamped with. Starting the constant at anything but 0 would make every existing base-bearing document fail to open without any semantics having changed — the rung would manufacture the breakage it exists to detect. The first real bump is P13-S16's, to 1.

The doc comment must say this, so 0 is not later read as "unset."

Pin 2a — the legacy-base disposition is OPEN, and S16 is blocked on it. Baseline 0 does not preserve every current base-bearing document, and this contract's first draft claimed it would. Verified: serialize.rs:327–:331 builds a canonical base stamped ReductionAlgorithmVersion(1) and serialize_and_reopen (:347) round-trips it; vectors.rs:353/:363 are committed text-projection vectors carrying the same; generators.rs:1628/:1651 emit rng.range(0, 8). Injecting the real authority 0 at every site would reject part of the present corpus.

Evidence updated 2026-08-07 in review round 1 — the disposition is unchanged, the corpus is not. vectors.rs:353/:363 no longer exist. The format-epoch rung rebuilt the text-projection corpus to 20 vectors with canonical_bases reach 2 → 0, so the two base-carrying vectors this pin cites are gone; the single surviving occurrence is vectors.rs:326, inside the canonical_base_present reject vector. Pin 2a's conclusion stands (it was settled from outside by the container epoch), but pin 3b's fixture-surface reasoning must be re-derived against the current corpus rather than against the two vectors named here. generators.rs:1628/:1651 are unaffected and still emit rng.range(0, 8).

Pin 3b handles the fixtures — they take named synthetic capabilities. It does not handle the real problem:

After S16 moves the authority to 1, a pre-S27 base that happens to carry 1 is indistinguishable from a legitimately rebuilt S16 base. A raw u32 carries no provenance, so no check can tell a conforming new base from a coincidental legacy one.

0 may remain the baseline, but this rung MUST settle one of:

• (i) Normalize before S16 — a migration that rebuilds or re-stamps every pre-authority nonzero base, so the space below the first real bump is empty by construction. Requires locating every such artifact, including committed vectors.

• (ii) Choose a non-colliding epoch — start the authority at a value no pre-authority artifact can hold (the observed range is 0..8, so e.g. 1000), making legacy values structurally distinguishable, and define what an implementation does on encountering one.

• (iii) Carry provenance — a wider or tagged authority type. The largest change; it makes ReductionAlgorithmVersion's wire meaning richer and is likely a schema question, which the other two are not.

• (iv) FORMAT_MINOR as a provenance carrier — PROPOSED AND REJECTED 2026-07-31. Recorded here so it is not re-proposed. The idea was to bump FORMAT_MINOR (header.rs:42) so pre-S27 bundles are structurally identifiable, since decode gates on major only (:119). Two independent objections, either one fatal:

  1. The header is immutable and commit cannot touch it. core_spec.tex:10799–:10800: "The header never changes after the file is created." commit_versioned (bundle.rs:791) computes and publishes only a new superblock. So: open a legacy minor-1 bundle with no base; under S27 commit a base that writer validation just accepted; the header is still minor 1. If minor ≤ 1 bases are rejected, a base S27 itself validated becomes permanently unusable. If they are accepted, S16 still cannot tell an old arbitrary 1 from a real S16 1. Both branches fail, which is the whole question 2a exists to settle.
  2. A minor bump may not mean this. core_spec.tex:12258–:12262: minor changes are backward-compatible and "MUST only append discriminants to the append-safe" set. Making a previously-valid canonical base newly rejectable is a semantic acceptance change, not an append. And because current readers ignore minor entirely, they would open minor-2 bundles and skip the check — an enforcement boundary that binds only the readers that already comply.

  The proposal also mis-stated its own corpus result: after the bump, serialize_document writes a minor-2 header, so its base-1 fixture must fail writer validation under real authority 0. A synthetic capability (pin 3b) can preserve that as a format test, but it cannot make the fixture evidence about a legacy minor-1 bundle — the two are different documents.

The insight worth keeping from (iv), stated so a later rung can use it:

Provenance MUST be carried by a container property that old readers cannot silently accept and that cannot be inherited unchanged by a later commit. FORMAT_MINOR fails both halves; any candidate carrier must be checked against both before it is proposed.

That points at a real format-epoch design — most plausibly a major-version boundary with explicit legacy-read and rebuild handling, or a generation-scoped attestation paired with an incompatibility boundary for old readers. Either is a format-design rung of its own, with an honest rebuild/repack policy for legacy bases; neither is a clause this contract can absorb.

Until a disposition is ratified AND tested, P13-S16 does not become dispatchable merely because S27 lands. This pin deliberately remains an open question. It is not to be amended into a disposition without its own ratification round.

Pin 2a — RESOLVED 2026-08-07 by the format-epoch rung.

The ratification round this pin demanded is the one the format-epoch contract had: spec/CONTRACT_FORMAT_EPOCH_MAJOR1.md, ratified after four adversarial review rounds, whose pin 8 exists to resolve this pin from outside it. The open analysis above is retained verbatim as the reasoning that produced the answer, not superseded prose.

The disposition is none of (i), (ii) or (iii): it is the container epoch.

Reduction-version authority is meaningful only in major-1 containers. Legacy bases are refused by container epoch, never by version arithmetic.

That is why the collision this pin identified never has to be adjudicated. A pre-S27 base carrying 1 and a legitimately rebuilt S16 base carrying 1 are indeed indistinguishable as numbers — and they never meet, because the pre-S27 base can only exist in a major-0 container, which is refused at the epoch boundary before any version is compared. The u32 never has to carry provenance, because the container already does.

Each rejected option, and why the epoch beats it: (i) normalizing the corpus would have to find every artifact, and a missed one is silently wrong forever; (ii) a non-colliding epoch value is a convention a hand-authored document can simply declare — parse.rs:591 accepts an unbounded u32; (iii) widening the type makes the wire meaning richer and buys nothing the container property does not already give. All three try to make a number carry provenance. The epoch makes the file carry it.

S27's own baseline stays 0 (pin 2 is unchanged). What changes is that the question "what about a base older than the authority?" is no longer S27's to answer.

Inherited from the format-epoch rung — obligations S27 must discharge

The format rung lands before this one and closes two things temporarily, naming S27 as what reopens them. Both are owed work here, not optional:

1. The interim refusals become real validation. The format rung's pin 3a temporarily refuses both major-1 base boundaries — opening a major-1 container that already carries a base, and committing a base into one — through a third, temporary error (ReductionAuthorityUnavailable) that is distinct from its two legacy/repack errors. S27 replaces both branches with capability validation. Replacing only one leaves a hole exactly where the format rung's own review found one.

2. The deferred laundering demonstration (format-rung M8). That rung could not demonstrate the text-import laundering path end to end, because pin 3a refuses every major-1 base commit categorically, so the "a base-bearing text document really does serialize into a major-1 container" observation is unreachable there. Under S27 a base commit succeeds or fails on its version, so the demonstration becomes performable and is owed: with pin 3b's text refusal removed, show that a base-bearing document whose raw version happens to match the current authority serializes into a major-1 container indistinguishable from a validated one. That is the false provenance the text refusal exists to prevent, and it has never been observed — only reasoned about.

   RULED 2026-08-07 in review round 1: the removal is a MUTATION, not a capability restoration. As written, "with pin 3b's text refusal removed" was ambiguous between temporarily lifting the refusal to observe what it prevents, and permanently restoring base-bearing text round-trip. The sentence's own next clause settles it — "that is the false provenance the text refusal exists to prevent" — and a guard is not permanently deleted in order to demonstrate why it is needed. The format rung's text refusal is permanent and S27 does not lift it. The demonstration is therefore M7 in §4, removed and restored by hand-editing, and this obligation is discharged there rather than by a test.

   Consequences of the ruling, stated so they are not re-litigated: COMPANION_VERSION stays 0.14.0; parse.rs, vectors.rs, textproj/src/lib.rs and spec/text_projection.tex are NOT touched by this rung and are deliberately absent from §2; and the corpus keeps canonical_bases reach 0. A future rung may restore the capability — that is its own contract, with the four touch rows and the companion-version bump this one declines.

3. Two conformance assertions come back (format-rung pin 3c). Criterion 4's bookkeeping-projection counterpart, assert_reduction_serialization_stable (testkit/src/roundtrip.rs:241), keeps its serialize → load → decode → reserialize cycle through the interval but loses exactly two canonical-base-specific assertions: verify_canonical_chunks's base branch (bundle.rs:613–:621, including the base.hash != base.root.hash cross-check), and the reopened manifest actually carrying the base (roundtrip.rs:293–:297). S27 restores both, since a base-bearing container becomes constructible again the moment validation replaces refusal. The harness carries a marker naming this contract at the suspension point.

Pin 3 — BundleCapabilities, required at both constructors, carried on the Bundle.

pub struct BundleCapabilities {
    pub current_reduction_version: ReductionAlgorithmVersion,
}

It MUST NOT implement Default, and MUST NOT expose a bundle-local constant. Both would let a caller use a bundle without stating what semantics it implements, which is the defect this rung exists to remove.

Bundle::open(store, caps) and Bundle::create(store, …, caps) both take it; the Bundle stores it. commit and commit_versioned then validate against self's copy and their 57 call sites are unchanged — the capability is a property of the session, not of each call. Naming it BundleCapabilities rather than OpenCapabilities follows from its now governing creation and commit.

The struct is a struct rather than a bare parameter so later capabilities append without another signature break — say so in its doc, and do not add speculative fields now.

The stored capability MUST be readable. ADDED IN REVIEW ROUND 3 — this is new scope, and round 4 should scrutinise it as such.

pub fn capabilities(&self) -> &BundleCapabilities

Round 3 found that M5a asked for an observation the API cannot make: this pin said the Bundle stores the capability and never said anything could see it. Bundle's public surface is manifest, generation, header, superblock, active_slot, file_uuid, is_read_only, anomalies, store, into_store and the readers — seventeen accessors, none for capabilities — so a epiphany-textproj test cannot inspect a private field of a bundle another crate constructed.

The accessor is justified on its own merits, not only to make a mutation runnable: the capability governs rejection behaviour, and a value that decides whether open and commit fail should be inspectable by the caller diagnosing that failure. It joins the same family as header() and superblock().

Read-only, borrowing, no setter. A setter would let a caller change the semantics it claims to implement after open validated against them, which reintroduces exactly what pin 3 removes.

Pin 3a — the writer is validated, not only the reader. RATIONALE CORRECTED IN REVIEW ROUND 3.

This pin previously read "§0.4 shows production code minting a stale document without ever calling open" — a sentence §0.4 itself retracts. Round 2 restated the justification in §0.4 and left the pin's own copy of it standing, so the contract asserted a claim and its negation in two places. Third occurrence of the same meta-defect: round 1 corrected one spelling of a count and left two, round 2 corrected §0.4's table and left the "Rung type" paragraph and touch row 2, and round 3 found this. A restatement that does not sweep every site restating it has not been made.

The justification, as it actually stands: commit and commit_versioned are public API. An out-of-tree caller can stage a canonical base directly, never touching epiphany-textproj and never calling open. There is no in-tree production path that does so — §0.4 verifies zero — so this pin guards an external surface, not an internal one. That is a narrower claim than the original and it is the one that survives scrutiny.

Therefore commit/commit_versioned MUST reject a manifest whose newly emitted or replaced canonical base carries a version differing from self.caps.current_reduction_version, with the same error as pin 4.

"Newly emitted or replaced" is the operative scope: a commit that does not touch canonical_base MUST NOT be refused merely because an inherited base is stale — that document could not have been opened in the first place, and refusing here would make an unrelated commit the site of the diagnosis.

Pin 3b — synthetic capabilities are named, so the choice is not a judgement call. Provide a constructor for fixture use named exactly

BundleCapabilities::synthetic_for_fixture(v: u32)

The name is PINNED, not illustrative. ROUND 17. This read "a clearly-named constructor … e.g. synthetic_for_fixture", leaving the name to execution — while gate 6a greps for that exact literal. Any other name and the gate returns 0 matches and reports a pass, having checked nothing. A gate that proves absence is only as good as the name it searches for, so the name it searches for cannot be an example. Renaming it requires amending this pin and gate 6a together.

whose doc states it is for format and container fixtures deliberately exercising arbitrary wire values and must never appear in a production composition path. Production paths wrap epiphany_ops::CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION.

Every call site converted by this rung uses one or the other explicitly; none may take a value that merely happens to be in scope.

The real-authority side gets a named constructor. RULED BY THE POST-RATIFICATION AMENDMENT, 2026-08-09.

The question this settles, raised by execution and pressed by review: pin 3b named the synthetic constructor and left the real-authority side as "wrap epiphany_ops::CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION", which is a value, not a name. Execution introduced a production_caps() helper per crate to satisfy "explicitly" without repeating the wrap 23 times — unpinned scope, and in epiphany-testkit it landed as new public API.

Ruled: the helpers are SANCTIONED, with visibility pinned per crate.

Crate	Visibility	Why
epiphany-textproj	pub(crate)	A production crate. Its five uses are all in-crate, so this rung adds no public API to it. pub here would be unpinned surface on a shipping crate
epiphany-testkit	pub	A test-support crate that exists to be consumed. Its integration tests and benches are external consumers (tests/bundle_reopen.rs 2 uses, benches/bundle.rs 3) and cannot reach pub(crate). A capability constructor is precisely what this crate exists to provide

Rejected alternative — direct construction at all 23 sites. It adds no API, but repeats the same wrap 23 times, and "explicit" was never the same thing as "repeated". The named helper is explicit: it says which side of pin 3b's split the site is on, and gate 6a can distinguish the two by name.

Consequences, listed rather than left implicit:

• The helper is named production_caps in both crates. Like synthetic_for_fixture, the name is pinned, because it is the token that distinguishes a real-authority site from a fixture one under review.
• epiphany-testkit's external consumers use it by path (epiphany_testkit::production_caps()); the crate-internal ones use crate::production_caps().
• Touch rows 13 and 14 carry the two crate roots.
• A pub(crate) helper in a production crate is not public API, so gate 5's spirit — this rung adds no dependency and no surface epiphany-ops must honour — is preserved for epiphany-textproj.

Pin 4 — the mismatch is a hard error.

BundleError::CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild {
    base: ReductionAlgorithmVersion,
    current: ReductionAlgorithmVersion,
}

A BundleError, not an IntegrityAnomaly, and not a read-only degradation. Read-only is wrong on the merits: a stale base is not a restricted-but-correct view, it is the wrong materialization, and exposing it read-only would serve incorrect canonical state confidently.

Its doc must record why open cannot recover: open cannot rebuild, and drop-and-replay is unsound once pruning exists (core_spec.tex:12207, :14701 — pruning is specified and not implemented; no prune appears anywhere in epiphany-bundle). A higher-level rebuild path may be authorized later only where full pre-base history is demonstrably available; this rung authorizes none.

Pin 5 — the check runs where the current check runs, and only for a base. In open, at bundle.rs:396. A bundle with no canonical base is openable regardless of caps.current_reduction_version — there is no reduced state to be stale. Order the two checks so the corrupt case (pin 6) is distinguishable.

Pin 6 — the existing corrupt-disagreement failure is preserved, distinctly. The current base-vs-superblock disagreement check must keep returning its existing malformed-bundle DecodeError. It is not replaced by pin 4 and not merged with it: they detect different things — tampering versus valid staleness — and collapsing them would lose the distinction §0.1 rests on.

Pin 7 — reduction_version_for does not change, and the reasoning is recorded. It keeps sourcing from the base's self-report — but its justification now rests on both validation points, and the first draft's single-sided reasoning was insufficient:

• read-time (pin 5): an opened bundle has proved base == current;
• write-time (pin 3a): a newly emitted or replaced base has proved the same.

Only together do these make propagation equal to propagating the current version. A doc line MUST state both, naming pin 5 and pin 3a — otherwise a later reader sees an unguarded self-report and either "fixes" it or trusts it in a context where neither check has run. §0.4's correction is exactly what happens when that reasoning is done one-sided.

Pin 8 — ids.rs:288–:289 becomes true. Repair the catalog claim to name the real location and the real mechanism: the authoritative version lives in epiphany-ops as a plain u32; the wrapper type is constructed at the composition boundary; epiphany-bundle deliberately does not depend on epiphany-ops. This is the rung that earns the sentence.

Pin 9 — normative specification text. core_spec.tex Chapter 8 §"Canonical Document Identity" currently states the rebuild requirement (:11614) with no error surface. Add the rejection behaviour normatively, and a Revision History row. There is no existing "requires rebuild" error language in either document — verified — so this is new prose, not an amendment.

Whether this mints a new \label{req:...} MUST be decided explicitly, and stated in the report. AMENDED 2026-08-07 in review round 1. The pin said "add the rejection behaviour normatively" without saying whether the behaviour gets its own requirement label, and the two readings have different touch tables:

• If it mints a label, core_spec.tex's requirement count moves 213 → 214 and crates/epiphany-testkit/tests/requirement_labels.rs must change — CORE_REQUIREMENT_COUNT = 213 (:15) is hardcoded and currently matches the tree exactly. Touch row 12 carries it.
• If it does not — the prose lands under an existing requirement — row 12 is unused and the report says so.

This is the escapee CLAUDE.md names by name, and it escaped the format-epoch rung's touch table too. A file that must change but is not listed silently drops out of the commit, and the resulting failure surfaces on someone else's branch.

Pin 10 — the ledger. AMENDED 2026-08-07, before dispatch, on a finding from the machine-move review. spec/PASS13_CANDIDATES.md: P13-S27 → RESOLVED, recording both rulings, the baseline-0 decision, the writer-path correction of §0.4, and whichever legacy-base disposition pin 2a settles on — which, as of 2026-08-07, is the container epoch, settled from outside this rung.

The original clause, retained for the record: "P13-S16's row does NOT become dispatchable on this rung alone. It moves from 'blocked on P13-S27' to 'blocked on the pin-2a legacy disposition' unless 2a is ratified and tested within this rung, in which case it opens and its row records that its first act is bumping the authority past the baseline."

Why it is amended. Pin 2a was ratified — through the format-epoch contract's four adversarial rounds — but outside this rung, which is exactly what pin 2a's own prohibition demanded: it forbade being amended into a disposition from inside this contract. So the clause's literal condition ("within this rung") could never be satisfied by the only route pin 2a permitted, and read literally pin 10 would have the ledger record S16 as still blocked on a disposition that is settled. The condition was written when an inside resolution still looked possible.

As amended: P13-S16's row becomes dispatchable when this rung lands. Pin 2a's disposition is settled, so the row moves from "blocked on P13-S27" straight to open, and records that its first act is bumping the authority past the baseline.

The "tested" half is not waived by this amendment. Ratification came from outside; testing did not, and cannot — no other rung exercises this authority. It is discharged by this rung's own inherited obligations, in particular converting both interim refusals to real capability validation. The ledger row may not record S16 as open until those land with this rung; ratification of 2a alone does not open it.

---

§2. Touch table

#	File	Change
1	crates/epiphany-ops/src/lib.rs (or a new reduction.rs)	pins 1, 2
2	crates/epiphany-bundle/src/bundle.rs	pins 3, 3a, 3b, 5, 6, 7 + 23 in-crate open sites + 11 in-crate create sites. (Was "35 opens" — corrected in review round 2. The 35 was never bundle.rs alone: it was bundle.rs 20 + fuzz.rs 15 at 381c498, and fuzz.rs has its own row 5. Now 23 after the format rung added 3.)
3	crates/epiphany-bundle/src/error.rs	pin 4
4	crates/epiphany-bundle/src/ids.rs	pin 8
5	crates/epiphany-bundle/src/fuzz.rs	15 open sites + 1 create site. (Figures stated in review round 2; row 2's old "35" silently included these, so the two rows together could not be reconciled against §0.4.)
6	crates/epiphany-bundle/tests/{crash_recovery,manifest_selection}.rs	call sites
7	crates/epiphany-testkit/src/{bundle_harness,roundtrip}.rs	call sites (11 + 4 open, 6 + 6 create), real authority
7a	crates/epiphany-testkit/src/generators.rs	NOT a call site — corrected in review round 3. It has zero Bundle::open/Bundle::create calls; row 7 previously swept it in as "call sites, real authority" and was wrong on both counts. Its actual role is :1628/:1651, which mint manifests carrying ReductionAlgorithmVersion(rng.range(0, 8)) — arbitrary wire values, so per pin 3b their consumers take synthetic_for_fixture, never the real authority. It changes only if the generated version must be surfaced so a caller can build a matching synthetic capability. State in the report whether it changed and why; if it did not, it must not be staged.
8	crates/epiphany-testkit/tests/bundle_reopen.rs, benches/bundle.rs	call sites
9	crates/epiphany-textproj/src/{serialize,project}.rs	call sites, real authority
10	spec/core_spec.tex (+ .pdf)	pin 9
11	spec/PASS13_CANDIDATES.md	pin 10
12	crates/epiphany-testkit/tests/requirement_labels.rs	conditional — pin 9, only if it mints a new \label{req:...}. ALL THREE counters move, not one (amended 2026-08-09): CORE_REQUIREMENT_COUNT (:15) 213 → 214, and SUITE_REQUIREMENT_COUNT (:18) and SUITE_LABEL_COUNT (:19) 284 → 285, because the suite totals include core_spec's requirements and its labels. The original instruction named only the first; execution found the other two through four failing tests in this file. If pin 9 mints no label, leave unmodified and say so in the report
13	crates/epiphany-bundle/src/lib.rs	ADDED 2026-08-09. Pin 3's BundleCapabilities is required at open/create, so callers in other crates need it re-exported — 92 converted sites across three crates cannot name a type this crate does not export. Unavoidable, and carried by no row through nineteen rounds
14	crates/epiphany-testkit/src/lib.rs	ADDED 2026-08-09. pub fn production_caps() — pin 3b's real-authority constructor, pub because this crate's integration tests and benches are external consumers
15	crates/epiphany-textproj/src/lib.rs	ADDED 2026-08-09. pub(crate) fn production_caps() — same constructor, crate-private because this is a production crate and all its uses are in-crate
16	crates/epiphany-testkit/src/gminor.rs	ADDED 2026-08-09. One Bundle::create_versioned site (:85). Missing because §0.4 never counted that constructor — see the amendment note there. This file calls only create_versioned, so no surface count reached it

Row 12 is conditional, and that is deliberate. CLAUDE.md names this file as a recurring escapee, and it escaped the format-epoch rung's table. Carrying it conditionally costs nothing if unused; omitting it costs a silent drop-out.

spec/text_projection.tex, crates/epiphany-textproj/src/{parse,vectors}.rs and crates/epiphany-textproj/src/lib.rs are deliberately ABSENT — see the ruling under inherited obligation 2. M7 edits the refusals temporarily and restores them by hand; nothing there is staged. If any of those files shows up in git diff --cached, M7 was not restored and gate 4 must fail.

---

§3. Required tests

Header corrected 2026-08-07 in review round 1. It read "(pin 4's ruling names all four)" while the list below carried seven items. The count went stale twice — test 5 was added when the first draft's writer-path omission was found, then tests 6 and 7 with pin 2a's resolution — and gate 1 inherited the stale figure. Do not reconcile against a fixed number; see gate 1.

Named and permanent. Where each test lives — corrected twice, in rounds 5 and 6:

Tests	Crate	Why there
1–6, 8, 9	epiphany-bundle	they exercise open/commit with synthetic capabilities and need no real authority
7, 10b	epiphany-testkit	7 is assert_reduction_serialization_stable; 10b needs the real constant
10a	epiphany-textproj	it asserts what the production writer supplied

Two wrong versions of this sentence, both introduced while fixing it. It originally read "in epiphany-bundle" for everything. Round 5 corrected it to "tests 1–9 in epiphany-bundle" — still false, because test 7 is assert_reduction_serialization_stable, which the same round's own §3 entry names as testkit/src/roundtrip.rs. Round 6 caught it. A correction that restates a range without checking each member of it is a guess with a citation attached.

Why 10a and 10b cannot live in epiphany-bundle: that crate must not depend on epiphany-ops (pin 1, §0.3), so no test in it can reach CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION — and reaching the real authority is their entire purpose.

Touch-table homes: 10a lands in row 9's textproj/src/serialize.rs; 7 and 10b in row 7's testkit/src/roundtrip.rs. All rows already exist and none needs widening — state in the report which file each landed in, since a test placed outside its row silently drops out of the commit.

Every base-bearing test MUST assert the base is present. ADDED IN ROUND 17

Tests 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 all describe base-bearing scenarios, and none of them required checking that a base was there. Pin 5 makes base-free the permissive case — a bundle with no canonical base opens at any authority — so a fixture that silently ends up base-free makes every one of those tests pass trivially, asserting nothing. Test 1 degenerates into test 4.

That is not a hypothetical fixture slip. create rejects a base-bearing manifest outright (bundle.rs:234), and for the whole S28 → S27 interval a base-bearing Bundle has been unconstructible through the public API (§1.2). Base-bearing fixtures are the awkward ones to build, so the failure mode is the path of least resistance.

Each of tests 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 MUST assert the base's presence explicitly, on the bundle under test. The required assertion is not the same for all of them — CORRECTED IN ROUND 18, which caught this rule demanding the opposite of what test 8 exists to do:

Test	Before	After
1, 6, 7	canonical_base.is_some()	— (no commit)
8	is_none() — it introduces the base; that is the whole test	is_some()
9	is_some() — it opens a base-bearing bundle	is_some(), and the base unchanged

Round 17 wrote "before and after for tests 8 and 9, which commit", collapsing two opposite fixtures because both happen to commit. Test 8 commits a base into a bundle that has none; test 9 commits something unrelated to a base that is already there. Requiring is_some() before test 8's commit would make it unsatisfiable — or, worse, satisfiable by a fixture that already had a base, in which case the commit introduces nothing and the test asserts nothing. Grouping by mechanism (both commit) rather than by what each is for is what produced the error.

A test that cannot state which bundle it asserted this on has not made the assertion.

(Stated once here rather than repeated per test — round 7's rule. The tests below do not restate it.)

1. open_succeeds_when_base_and_current_reduction_versions_match — the commit construction route. ROUTES SWAPPED IN ROUND 18. Create a bundle with synthetic caps(N), commit a canonical base carrying N, take the bytes, and reopen under caps(N). It shares test 8's setup and asserts a different thing: test 8 asserts the commit succeeds, test 1 asserts the reopen does.
2. open_rejects_a_valid_stale_canonical_base — base and superblock agree with each other, caps.current differs. Must return CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild { base, current } with both fields asserted, not merely the variant.
3. a_corrupt_base_superblock_disagreement_still_fails_as_malformed — the pin-6 path, asserted to be the existing malformed error and not CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild.
4. a_bundle_with_no_canonical_base_opens_at_any_reduction_version — run at two caps values that the test asserts are unequal. ROUND 17: it previously said only "two different values"; if they coincide the test proves nothing about any, and nothing would say so. Assert the inequality, and assert the fixture is base-free — this is the one test whose scenario requires canonical_base.is_none(), the mirror of the rule above.
5. committing_a_stale_canonical_base_fails_and_leaves_the_prior_generation_reopenable — the pin-3a writer test, and the one this contract's first draft omitted entirely. Create a bundle, commit a good generation, then attempt a commit whose newly emitted canonical base carries a version differing from caps. Assert both: the commit fails with CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild, and the bundle reopens at the prior active generation with its earlier content intact. A writer check that corrupts the document while refusing is worse than no check.

Added 2026-08-07 with pin 2a's resolution — inherited obligations 1 and 3, stated as tests so they cannot be discharged by prose. (Corrected in review round 1: this preamble previously claimed all the inherited obligations were stated as tests. Obligation 2 was in neither §3 nor §4 — it is now M7, by the ruling recorded beside it.)

6. a_major_1_bundle_carrying_a_base_opens_when_the_authority_matches — the read-side half of the format rung's pin 3a, converted from temporary refusal to real validation. Its sibling is test 2, which is the same path when the authority disagrees. Both branches must exist; the format rung's own review found a draft that closed only one.

   How this differs from test 1, which asserts the same outcome. ROUND 17 flagged them as possible duplicates; they are kept distinct, and here is the distinction they must actually carry. ROUTES SWAPPED IN ROUND 18.

   Test 6 builds its image by hand, with craft_image_with_base(1, 0, ReductionAlgorithmVersion(N), ReductionAlgorithmVersion(N)), and exercises open in isolation from any commit path. Test 1 reaches the same state by the commit path.

   Why this way round, and not the way round 17 had it. Test 6 is the conversion of opening_a_major_1_bundle_that_already_carries_a_base_is_refused (bundle.rs:1866), and that test hand-builds its image — it calls craft_image_with_base(1, 0, ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0), ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0)) at :1869. Round 17 assigned test 6 the commit path while also requiring its fixture to "arrive the way that test's did", which are contradictory: the test it converts is hand-built.

   Swapping the routes makes the attribution true rather than deleting it. Test 6 keeps its ancestor's construction and changes only its assertion — refusal becomes validation, which is exactly what "conversion" should mean. craft_image_with_base takes format_major as its first argument, so it builds the major-1 image test 6's name requires.

   The two construction routes are the point, and the probe is why. The scratch probe established that how an artifact is constructed changes its bytes — a hand-built and a committed bundle are not interchangeable, and one can be a fixed point where the other is not. Two routes into the same guarantee is real coverage, not redundancy.

   If execution finds the routes collapsing into the same construction, that is a finding: say so rather than quietly writing one test twice.

7. The two restored conformance assertions (format-rung pin 3c), in assert_reduction_serialization_stable (testkit/src/roundtrip.rs:241): verify_canonical_chunks covering the base again, and the reopened manifest carrying it. Restoring them means deleting the suspension marker that names this contract — if the marker is still in the tree when this rung reports, the restoration did not happen.

8. committing_a_canonical_base_succeeds_when_the_authority_matches — ADDED 2026-08-07 in review round 1. Obligation 1 warns that converting only one branch "leaves a hole exactly where the format rung's own review found one", and the write-side positive branch had no test: test 1 is read-positive, test 2 read-negative, test 5 write-negative. The missing branch is precisely where the format rung's temporary refusal sits (bundle.rs:795 → ReductionAuthorityUnavailable, asserted by a_major_1_bundle_round_trips_and_refuses_to_introduce_a_base at :1787). Without this test, an implementation that converts the read side and leaves commit refusing categorically passes every other test in this section.

9. an_unrelated_commit_on_a_base_bearing_bundle_succeeds — ADDED IN REVIEW ROUND 3. Open a bundle carrying a base whose version matches caps (the state test 6 establishes), then commit something that does not touch canonical_base, and assert it succeeds and the bundle reopens with both the new content and the untouched base.

   Why it is required, and why M6 alone was not enough. M6's replacement broadens pin 3a and says an unrelated commit "starts failing" — but a mutation only demonstrates; it does not pin. Test 6 stops at opening. So with tests 2, 5, 6 and 8 alone, an implementation that rejects every post-base unrelated commit passes all of them, and M6's broadening would have nothing to break because the unbroadened behaviour was never asserted. This test is the permanent statement of pin 3a's "newly emitted or replaced" scope; M6 is only its mutation.

   This is the third distinct way a §4 mutation has been found unrunnable — M5a had no observation mechanism, M5b could not fail, and M6 had nothing asserting the behaviour it breaks. A mutation is only as good as the test it breaks, and §4 must name that test for every entry.

Added in review round 4 — the two tests M5a and M5b break. Round 3 wrote both mutations without them, in the same edit that added §7 item 4a requiring them.

10a. serialize_document_supplies_the_real_reduction_authority — in epiphany-textproj. Serialize a base-free document and assert bundle.capabilities().current_reduction_version == ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0).

The 0 MUST be a literal, and the test MUST carry a comment saying why. Comparing against CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION would compare the constant with itself and hold for every value — the assertion would be unfalsifiable and M5a could not break it. This test is expected to fail when S16 bumps the authority, and that is correct: the literal is a tripwire on the production wiring, and S16 updating it is S16 stating that it moved.

10b. a_base_bearing_bundle_reopened_under_the_real_authority_validates — in epiphany-testkit, which may use the real constant. Build the fixture with synthetic_for_fixture(0), commit a base carrying the literal ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0), take the bytes, and reopen them with caps built from CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION.

It MUST match on the reopen's Result explicitly, with both arms written. PINNED IN ROUND 5 — "assert it opens" was not enough.

match reopen {
    Ok(bundle)  => // the unmutated path: assert the base survived
    Err(BundleError::CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild { base, current }) =>
        // assert base == ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0)
        // assert current == the mutated authority
        // THEN fail, quoting both fields
    Err(other) => // fail: the wrong error, quoting it
}

Why the Err arm is required even though the test asserts success. M5b must observe CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild { base, current } with both fields asserted. Round 4 specified only "assert it opens", which under mutation yields a bare Err or a panic — a #[test] -> Result that returns Err is not an assertion about that error's fields. The two-field observation M5b demands had no home in the test M5b names. The Err arm is that home: it runs only under mutation, and it is what makes M5b's required output a verified observation rather than a stack trace.

The third arm is not padding. Without it, an implementation returning a different error under mutation still fails the test, and the mutation report would read as success while observing nothing.

This is the only place in the rung where the real authority meets a canonical base, which is why M5b needs it and why no existing test could serve. It must be a named test returning a matchable Result, not an assertion inside a void conformance helper.

Every fixture literal in 10a and 10b is load-bearing as a literal. A later reader "tidying" any of them into CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION makes the corresponding mutation vacuous while leaving every test green. Give each one a doc comment saying so.

How many there are, and where that is recorded: §7 item 4b — which enumerates them, and is the only place they are counted. This paragraph said "both literals … tidying either" from round 4 until round 7, a two-literal framing that round 6 corrected in §7 and not here, leaving the contract carrying both the fixed and the broken version of the same claim. It is not restated here on purpose. The recurring defect across rounds 5, 6 and 7 is a claim living in two places and being fixed in one; the remedy is a single home and a pointer, not a second copy kept in step by vigilance.

Tests 2 and 3 must be paired in review: each asserts the other's error is not produced. A test that only checks its own variant cannot show the two paths are distinguishable, which is the whole point of pin 6.

Tests 6 and 2 stand in the same relation to each other. So do tests 8 and 5, on the write side.

Several of these CONVERT existing tests rather than adding new ones — found in review round 1, and the reason gate 1 no longer names a number. The format rung left two tests asserting the interim refusal, and S27 turns each into a matched pair:

Existing test	Becomes
opening_a_major_1_bundle_that_already_carries_a_base_is_refused (bundle.rs:1866)	tests 6 and 2
a_major_1_bundle_round_trips_and_refuses_to_introduce_a_base (:1787)	tests 8 and 5
a_corrupt_base_fails_as_malformed_before_any_epoch_error (:1840)	extended into test 3 (adds the "not CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild" assertion)

And ReductionAuthorityUnavailable is deleted by this rung, so every site naming it must move or the crate will not compile: error.rs:152 (variant), :232 (Display arm), bundle.rs:422 and :795 (construction), the doc comments at :1538 and :1844, and five test assertions at :1740, :1774, :1834, :1861, :1879. The three negative assertions (:1740, :1774, :1861) exist to prove the legacy and corrupt paths do not produce it — they must be re-pointed at the error that replaces it, not deleted, or the distinction they were written to hold is lost.

---

§4. Mutation plan

Applied, run, output recorded verbatim, restored by hand-editing back.

M1 — the new check fires. OBSERVATION TIGHTENED IN ROUND 16. Delete pin 5's comparison. Test 2 failing is necessary and NOT sufficient: an unrelated open error can break its assertion without showing the capability check was the thing removed.

Observe the mutated outcome itself: the structurally valid, self-consistent base whose version differs from caps.current_reduction_version must be seen to OPEN SUCCESSFULLY. Report that open result and the deliberately mismatching base/current values.

M2 — the paths are distinguishable. OBSERVATION TIGHTENED IN ROUND 16. Make pin 4's error subsume pin 6's (return CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild for the corrupt case too). Test 3 failing is necessary and NOT sufficient: any result other than the expected malformed error breaks it, without proving corruption was misclassified as staleness.

Observe the mutated outcome itself: the corrupt base/superblock-disagreement fixture must be seen returning CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild { base, current }. Report both fields. That is the reclassification this mutation is meant to make, not merely a broken test assertion.

M3 — the no-base exemption is deliberate. OBSERVATION TIGHTENED IN ROUND 16. Make the check run when canonical_base is None. Test 4 failing is necessary and NOT sufficient: an error on either attempt can break it without showing the no-base exemption was removed.

Observe the mutated outcome itself: the base-free fixture, opened under the deliberately mismatching capability from test 4, must be seen rejected by the wrongly widened check with CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild { base, current }. For this mutation only, the base field is the base-free superblock's reduction_algorithm_version — ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0), obtained from reduction_version_for's no-base default. The current field is the deliberately mismatching capability. Report both values and the otherwise successful matching-capability open. This synthetic source exists only to make the wrong mutation observable; it MUST NOT enter shipped no-base validation.

M4 — the capability is genuinely required. Add impl Default for BundleCapabilities and a call site using it. This must be observed to compile, then reverted — it demonstrates what pin 3 forbids and why the prohibition needs to be a review rule, since no test can catch a Default that callers then use. Report it as a prohibition recorded, not a guard.

M5 — SPLIT IN REVIEW ROUND 2. It was unexecutable as written.

Why. It required changing CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION and observing a production composition path test fail — naming textproj's round trip. But serialize_document refuses base-bearing documents at serialize.rs:151, before Bundle::create, so its output is necessarily base-free; and pin 5 with test 4 require a base-free bundle to open at any authority. The mutation therefore cannot make that test fail — not because the wiring is absent, but because the path carries nothing for the authority to check. Round 1 introduced this by ruling M7's refusal permanent and not re-deriving M5 against it.

The original intent had two halves. They are now separate mutations, because no single path carries both any more.

M5a — the constant is wired into production. OBSERVATION MECHANISM PINNED IN REVIEW ROUND 3.

As written in round 2 this could not be run. It said "observe that the BundleCapabilities serialize_document constructs changes with it" without specifying how anything observes a capability stored on a bundle and exposed by nothing. Pin 3 now requires Bundle::capabilities(), and that accessor — not a temporary instrument — is the observation mechanism. A mutation whose observation depends on scaffolding that is not in the shipped tree observes the scaffolding, not the tree.

The test it breaks is test 10a (§3), and the comparison MUST be against a literal, not against the constant. CORRECTED IN ROUND 4.

Round 3 wrote "assert that the value moved with the constant", which is unfalsifiable. Asserting capabilities() == CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION compares the constant with itself laundered through one function call: mutate the constant and both sides move, so the assertion holds for every value. That is the same tautology round 3 caught in M5b, in the mutation next to it, written in the same edit. Round 3 also violated its own new §7 item 4a by naming no test at all.

Change CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION from 0 to any other value. Test 10a failing is necessary and NOT sufficient: a serialization failure would break its assertion without showing the production path reads the authority.

Observe the mutated outcome itself: serialize_document must return a bundle whose stored capabilities().current_reduction_version equals the deliberately changed authority. Report that value beside the test's deliberate literal ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0); test 10a then fails for that specific mismatch.

Assert on the capability only — not on an open or commit outcome. There is no base, so no check fires and none should. If an open or commit outcome moves here, the production path is doing something this contract does not authorize, and that is a finding.

M5b — the authority is load-bearing where a base exists. REWRITTEN IN REVIEW ROUND 3; as written it could not fail.

Round 3's diagnosis was right and its evidence was wrong. CORRECTED IN ROUND 4. Round 3 said the base version was stamped at roundtrip.rs:367. It is not. :367 sits inside assert_score_serialization_stable (:332) and pushes to acceleration_snapshots — a different harness and a different field. assert_reduction_serialization_stable (:255) has no canonical base at all today; pin 3c suspended it, and the harness reads its snapshot chunk directly by ChunkRef. So the value round 3 told the implementer not to touch has nothing to do with the authority check, and mutating it could not have failed anything.

How the error was made, since it is this rung's own subject: round 3 grepped ReductionAlgorithmVersion across testkit/src/, saw a roundtrip.rs hit, and attributed it to the function it was already thinking about without resolving the enclosing item. That is the fourth instrument failure in this contract and the second of exactly this shape — §0.4's .commit( miscount was the first.

The underlying tautology finding stands. If the supplied capability and the base version both descend from CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION, both operands move together and the comparison passes for every value — §0.1's defect inside the mutation built to detect it. Only the cited evidence was wrong.

The instrument is CHOSEN, not offered. ROUND 4. Round 3 said "the rung picks one" and named two routes, which is not a decision — and one of them does not exist: craft_image_with_base is a private fn inside epiphany-bundle's #[cfg(test)] module (bundle.rs:1648, module opens at :1407), so epiphany-testkit cannot call it. The routes also carry different fixture and touch-table consequences, so leaving the choice to execution would have put a design decision in the implementer's hands.

The chosen instrument — commit-then-reopen, entirely through public API:

1. Build a bundle with caps = synthetic_for_fixture(0) and commit a canonical base whose version is the deliberate literal ReductionAlgorithmVersion(0). This succeeds by test 8's path.
2. Take the bytes.
3. Reopen them with caps built from the real CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION.

Unmutated, the real constant is 0, the operands agree, and the bundle opens. Mutated, the constant is not 0, and the reopen fails with CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild { base: 0, current: <mutated> }.

Why this shape and not another: the two operands are independent by construction at the time of writing — one is a synthetic literal written into a fixture, the other is the real constant read at the reopen. It needs no private helper, no new fixture file, and no touch-table row. It isolates the real constant on the read side only, so pin 3a's writer check cannot fire first and mask the result.

What this does NOT give you, corrected in round 5. Round 4 claimed the literals "cannot be tidied into the other without deleting the synthetic capability the fixture is built on." That is false. A later edit can keep synthetic_for_fixture exactly where it is and pass CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION as both its argument and the base version — the fixture still looks synthetic, every test still passes, and the tautology is fully restored. The structure does not protect itself.

The only real protection is §7 item 4b, which requires positively confirming the literals are still literals. Round 4 overstated a structural guarantee and thereby weakened the case for the procedural check that is actually doing the work — the same error as trusting a mutation because it looks like it should fail.

The test it breaks is test 10b (§3) — a named test, not the void conformance helper. ROUND 4: round 3 nominated assert_reduction_serialization_stable, which returns () and whose reopen is .expect("reopen bundle") (roundtrip.rs:292). A mismatch there panics; it cannot match on CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild { base, current }, so the required two-field assertion was impossible in the nominated site.

Report the provenance of both operands. Naming where each came from is the only way to show they are independent, and that independence is the whole content of this mutation.

Preserved from the original M5: if only synthetic_for_fixture tests move, pin 3b has been applied backwards, and that is a finding.

Both halves are required. M5a alone shows the constant is read but never that it matters; M5b alone shows it matters but never that production reads it. The original mutation conflated the two because, at 381c498, one path did both.

M6 — the writer check fires. OBSERVATIONS TIGHTENED IN ROUND 15: a failing test is not the evidence; the changed behaviour is.

Remove pin 3a's commit-side validation. Test 5 failing is necessary and NOT sufficient — it fails for any error at all, including an unrelated writer rejection that has nothing to do with pin 3a.

Observe the mutated outcome itself: test 5's stale commit must be seen to SUCCEED, and the bundle must reopen at the new generation with the stale base present. That — not the absence of the old error — is what shows the check was the only thing refusing it.

Second half REPLACED IN REVIEW ROUND 2. It was unexecutable as written.

Why. It asked for pin 3a to be narrowed to refuse any stale inherited base, then for an unrelated commit on an already-open bundle to start failing. That state cannot be constructed: open rejects a stale base (pin 5, test 2), create rejects a base-bearing manifest outright (bundle.rs:234), and a successful commit validates the base it emits. No caller can hold an open Bundle whose inherited base is stale, so the mutation has nothing to observe. Round 1 added test 8 on the write side without re-deriving M6 against the same reachability.

As replaced — broaden rather than narrow. Widen pin 3a to refuse a commit on a base-bearing bundle regardless of whether the version matches, then observe test 9 — an_unrelated_commit_on_a_base_bearing_bundle_succeeds. That state is reachable (test 6 establishes it), so the mutation runs, and it signs the same thing the original was reaching for: that "newly emitted or replaced" is a deliberate scope and not an accident of where the check was placed.

Test 9 failing is necessary and NOT sufficient — ROUND 15. Observe the mutated outcome itself: test 9's commit, otherwise unchanged and not touching canonical_base, must be seen rejected specifically by the broadened writer rule — the error the broadening introduces, on the inherited-base path, named in the report. Not merely "test 9 now errors."

Why both halves needed this. ROUND 15 applied round 13's question to M6 — "what else, besides the intended defect, would make this pass?" Both halves accepted a failing test as the observation, and a test fails for every reason, not only the one under test. An unrelated writer rejection satisfies "test 5 must fail" and "test 9 starts failing" exactly as well as the intended cause does, so the mutation could report success while demonstrating nothing about pin 3a's scope. The evidence a mutation owes is the behaviour it changed, not the assertion it broke.

This is the same shape as round 13's M7 finding — an observation satisfiable by something other than the thing observed — and it was found by the scan round 13's finding implied and round 14 did not run. M1–M5b survive the same scan.

Test 9 was added in round 3 for exactly this reason. Round 2 wrote this replacement naming a scenario and no test, so nothing asserted the unbroadened behaviour and the broadening had nothing to break.

Record alongside it that the original formulation was unreachable. That pin 3a's scope is forced rather than chosen is a stronger result than the mutation was written to obtain, and it belongs in the report.

M7 — the laundering the text refusal prevents, finally observed. ADDED 2026-08-07 in review round 1; this discharges inherited obligation 2.

The format rung reasoned about this path and could never run it: its own pin 3a refused every major-1 base commit categorically, so the observation was unreachable. Under S27 a base commit succeeds or fails on its version, so it becomes reachable for the first time.

The path, corrected in round 8 and restructured in round 10.

The import leg is text → parse_document (parse.rs:83) → TextDocument → serialize_document (serialize.rs:143) → Bundle; round 10 prepends an export leg to derive the text from B (steps 1–2 below). Remove whatever refusals your actual path crosses — the import leg's are parse.rs:138–:147 and serialize.rs:151; the export leg's depend on how you reach text, and document_from_bundle carries one from be244df.

No count is given, and that is deliberate. This heading read "two of the three refusals matter" until round 10, when adding the export leg changed which are crossed. Every stated count here has been falsified by the next round — "all three" (round 1, wrong at round 8), "the two" (round 8, wrong at round 10).

Do NOT remove project_text_document's refusal (project.rs:579), and do not count it. It has the signature &TextDocument -> Result<String, _> — it is the export direction, and nothing on the import path calls it. The previous wording said "all three sides, since removing one leaves the others refusing and the document never reaches the writer", which is false for this one: it is not between the document and the writer, it points the other way.

The input MUST be text, and MUST be parsed. Round 1 wrote "construct a base-bearing TextDocument", which bypasses parse_document entirely — so the parser refusal was irrelevant to what was being demonstrated, and the demonstration was not the import laundering it is named for. An in-memory TextDocument proves nothing about what an external document can do, and what an external document can do is the entire threat.

And the text MUST be derived from the reference bundle, not hand-written. RESTRUCTURED IN ROUND 10 — see the alignment note below. The demonstration is a round trip, which is also the realistic form of the threat:

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.

M7's harness lives in epiphany-textproj. PINNED IN ROUND 12 — it was previously unchosen, and only one crate can host it.

M7 needs two things at once: the real constant (epiphany-ops) and render_text_document, which is pub(crate) to epiphany-textproj (project.rs:595). epiphany-textproj depends on epiphany-ops, so it has both. epiphany-testkit has the constant but cannot call the renderer, and making it able to would be a visibility change to epiphany-textproj's public API that no pin authorises — an unpinned API change smuggled in as test scaffolding.

So M7's temporary harness is written in epiphany-textproj, under touch row 9, which already carries textproj/src/{serialize,project}.rs. No new touch row. (Round 11 said "in a crate that can reach the real constant", which is true of two crates and decisive for neither — leaving execution to discover the visibility wall and improvise past it.)

render_text_document stays pub(crate). Handoff §1.3 records it as the one intentional hole in the text refusal, existing solely so a negative vector can carry the spelling it asserts is refused. Widening it to host M7 would turn a deliberately narrow exemption into public API — and M7 is a mutation that gets reverted, so it must not leave a widened surface behind.

1. Build B_raw, the validated reference — in epiphany-textproj, per the pin above: 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.

1a. Normalise to a byte-level fixed point. The bound is PINNED AT ONE NORMALISING STEP — round 12.

Define, with uuid fixed throughout:

• B₀ = B_raw
• B₍ₙ₊₁₎ = serialize_document(document_from_bundle(Bₙ), uuid)
• B_fixed = Bₙ for the smallest n with B₍ₙ₊₁₎.image() == Bₙ.image().

Compute at most B₁ and B₂. The permitted maximum is n = 1. So:

Outcome	Meaning	Required action
B₁ == B₀	B_raw was already a fixed point	B_fixed = B₀; report "already fixed"
B₁ != B₀ and B₂ == B₁	one normalising step, the expected case	B_fixed = B₁; report n = 1
B₂ != B₁	the normalisation is not idempotent	HARD FAILURE. Report all three image lengths and the first differing offset between B₁ and B₂

The bound is one step because that is a property, not a tolerance. document_from_bundle canonicalises, so serialize_document ∘ document_from_bundle must reach its canonical form in a single application. If B₂ != B₁, there is no canonical form — and then no choice of reference artifact is principled and M7 is invalid as a whole, not merely failing on this input. That outcome is a finding about the projection, and it must be reported as one rather than worked around by iterating further.

Raising the bound requires an amendment with its own review round. It was left unstated until round 12, which meant execution would have chosen when non-convergence becomes failure — silently changing what the experiment means. A loop that iterates until it happens to settle tests nothing; it merely reports how long it took.

(The probe observed one step sufficing for three documents. That motivated this bound; it does not prove it, which is exactly why B₂ != B₁ is a reportable finding rather than an assertion nobody expects to fire.)

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_fixed's FileUuid.
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.

Round 8 nominated test 10b's construction, and 10b cannot serve. Its write-side capability is synthetic_for_fixture(0); only its reopen uses the real authority. So its base was never committed under the real constant, and comparing against it compares one synthetic fixture with another — the "genuinely validated" half of the claim would simply be absent.

This is a collision between two of this contract's own designs. Round 4 made 10b synthetic-on-write deliberately, so that M5b's two operands would be provably independent. That is exactly what disqualifies it here. One artifact cannot be both "independent of the real authority" and "committed under the real authority." Round 8 reused a fixture by name without re-reading what it was built to be.

M7 therefore builds its own reference — step 1 above.

Alignment is INHERITED, not enumerated. ROUND 10.

Round 9 listed four things to align — FileUuid, base payload, schema versions, generation — and the list was nowhere near complete. serialize_document additionally fixes document_id, lineage_id, profile_declarations, every extension's extension_id / version / required / affected_object_kinds / edit_barriers and preserved chunks, the envelope payloads, the staging order (base root → extension chunks → operation-envelope block), the manifest schema major, and epoch_max — and from those, every chunk ref, hash and offset in the result.

So a byte difference would have had a third possible cause: "the reference was built differently." That is neither permitted classification — not nondeterminism, not a provenance signal — and its existence makes the whole comparison uninterpretable. A result that cannot be classified is not an observation.

This is the same defect round 9 fixed one level up, and it is the third time this contract has tried to enumerate a complete set by hand and failed: "every field that could carry provenance" (round 8), "every field to align" (round 9), both wrong on the day they were written. Stop enumerating.

Because D is derived from B by steps 2–3, every input serialize_document reads is already B's own. Nothing is aligned by hand and no list can be incomplete. The only free variable is FileUuid, which is an explicit argument, set to B's in step 4.

The setup-mismatch category is therefore eliminated by construction, not by care — there is no independent second construction to mismatch. That is the only reason whole-image equality means anything here.

Which refusals the path crosses: name them from the path, do not take a count from this contract. Steps 2–4 cross the projector-side, parser and serializer refusals in whatever combination the code actually presents — render_text_document is expected not to refuse, and document_from_bundle carries a refusal of its own from be244df. Enumerate what you actually had to remove, and restore each by hand-editing back. Every previously stated count here has been wrong (round 8 and round 9 each corrected one), which is why none is stated now.

The comparison method — whole artifacts, not a field list. CORRECTED IN ROUND 9.

Compare the complete image() bytes of both bundles. Equality is necessary but NOT sufficient — it is observation 1 of three, and the control must still run and reject the mismatched base. See the observation requirements below; they are the authority on what M7 owes, and this paragraph specifies only how to compare, never what suffices.

CORRECTED IN ROUND 14. This read "if they are equal, the observation is made and nothing further is required" — written in round 9, when byte equality was the whole of M7. Round 13 added the writer-check control and did not sweep back to this sentence, so the contract simultaneously required the control and licensed omitting it, with the permissive sentence sitting earlier and reading as the summary. A reader following the document in order would have stopped here.

Round 8 specified a field enumeration and got it wrong, which is why this is no longer a list. It claimed to cover "everything that could carry provenance" while omitting FixedHeader.file_uuid — the very field it required to match — along with the superblock's generation, manifest_offset, manifest_length and manifest_hash, and the whole of the manifest outside canonical_base. A hand-written list of "every field" is a claim about a struct's contents that goes stale when the struct changes, and this one was wrong on the day it was written.

Comparing the whole artifact cannot be incomplete. Same lesson as tables over numbers, applied to the experiment instead of the prose: let the artifact defend itself rather than enumerating it correctly.

If the images differ, do not stop and do not conclude. Enumerate every differing byte range, resolve each to its field, and classify it:

• justified nondeterminism — state the cause and why it cannot carry provenance, then normalize it and re-compare; or
• a provenance signal — a field that does distinguish a laundered base from a validated one. That is a finding, and a significant one: the text refusal may be stronger than it needs to be, and a future rung could use that field instead. Report it; do not normalize it away.

Report the comparison, not a verdict. "Byte-indistinguishable" asserted as a 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. 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.

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 the images are equal and the other two observations hold, the refusal is justified and the format rung's reasoning is confirmed by observation for the first time. If the images differ, resolve the difference to a field: it is either justified nondeterminism, or a provenance signal nobody knew existed — in which case the text refusal may be stronger than it needs to be, and that is a finding for a future rung, not something to suppress because it contradicts the expected result.

CORRECTED IN ROUND 14, as a second instance of that round's finding. This read "if every field matches, the refusal is justified" — the same sufficiency claim as the sentence above, in different words, and still carrying round 8's "every field" vocabulary that round 9 replaced with whole-image comparison. Round 14 reported no second instance, and there was one: a search for "nothing further" or "sufficient" could not reach a sentence that says "matches" instead. Same defect, different spelling — the failure mode CLAUDE.md names, met inside the fix for it.

Restore every refusal you removed by hand-editing back, never with git — working from the enumeration the path requirement above demands, not from a count stated here. (This said "all three" until round 8, then "the two … parse.rs and serialize.rs" until round 10, when the round-trip path changed which refusals are crossed. Three wordings, three wrong counts; there is now no count to be wrong.) Record the result as a demonstration, not a guard: nothing in the shipped tree changes, and the refusal is permanent (see the ruling under inherited obligation 2).

You will meet dead code here. Do NOT fix it — report it. Found in review round 2: serialize.rs:157's if let Some(base) = &document.canonical_base is unreachable, orphaned by the :151 guard that returns CanonicalBaseUnsupported before it. Removing the guard for M7 makes it live again, which is what lets the demonstration run at all — and restoring the guard makes it dead again. It is a pre-existing defect from the format-epoch rung, not this rung's to repair, and touching it would put an unpinned change in a staged file. Record it in the report; it is a Pass-13 candidate.

This is a mutation whose expected outcome is SUCCESS, not failure. Every other mutation here breaks a test; this one makes a refused path succeed, and the finding is that it succeeds silently. Do not report it as a passing gate.

---

§5. Gate

1. cargo test --workspace — full pass. Report the new total and account for the delta by category — do NOT reconcile against a fixed number. (Corrected in review round 1: this item read "(four tests added)", a figure already stale twice over, and §3's own header carried the same wrong count. The delta is not a simple addition: three of §3's tests convert or extend existing format-rung tests, which nets zero, while others are new.) The baseline is 1570. Give the count in three buckets — net-new, converted-from-existing, restored-assertions — and if they do not sum to the observed delta, that is a finding, not an arithmetic error to be papered over. Also report the ignored count, which MUST be 0. ROUND 17: this required a "full pass" and said nothing about ignored tests, so an #[ignore]d new test satisfies it while never running — and could still be counted as net-new. The measured baseline is 1570 passed / 0 failed / 0 ignored across 42 suites; any nonzero ignored count is a finding.

2. cargo +1.95.0 clippy --workspace --all-targets -- -D warnings → clean. The toolchain is part of the gate. ROUND 17. This named none, in a repo whose CI comment records that "1.97 rejects a bare 2.0 that 1.95 accepts" — and whose default stable is 1.97.1, not the pinned 1.95.0 that CI gates on. A clippy result that does not say which toolchain produced it says nothing. Report the toolchain with the result.

3. cargo +1.95.0 fmt -p epiphany-ops -p epiphany-bundle -p epiphany-testkit -p epiphany-textproj --check → clean, on the same pinned toolchain and for the same reason. cargo fmt --all is forbidden (it crosses into spikes/ through path dependencies).

4. git diff --cached --check clean after staging. The staged list is a SUBSET of §2, not an equality. ROUND 17. It read "staged list exactly §2", which is unsatisfiable: row 12 is explicitly conditional and row 7a may legitimately not change. Read literally it fails whenever a conditional row is correctly unused — or invites staging an unchanged file to satisfy it. Instead: every staged path must appear in §2, and every §2 row must be either staged or named in the report as unused, with its reason. Neither direction may be silent.

5. epiphany-ops has NOT gained an epiphany-bundle dependency — read crates/epiphany-ops/Cargo.toml directly and quote all three dependency tables ([dependencies], [dev-dependencies], [build-dependencies]). ROUND 17: it said only "check directly", naming no tables — and a dev-dependency would satisfy a reader checking only the first while still creating the cycle pin 1 exists to prevent.

6. BundleCapabilities implements no Default. REWRITTEN IN ROUND 17 — the previous query could not detect the likelier violation.

   What was wrong, verified by running it. The old regex was impl +Default +for +BundleCapabilities|derive\([^)]*\bDefault\b[^)]*\)[[:space:]]*(pub )?struct BundleCapabilities. grep is line-oriented, and [[:space:]]* cannot cross the newline rustfmt puts between an attribute and its item. Run against a real #[derive(Debug, Clone, Default)] above pub struct BundleCapabilities, it returns 0 matches — the gate passes. Only the explicit impl form was ever caught. #[derive(Default)] is the likelier way someone adds it, and gate 6 is the sole mechanical guard on pin 3's prohibition — M4 exists precisely because no test can catch a Default that callers then use.

   Three checks, all required. Report all three outputs, not a verdict.

   a. grep -rn "impl Default for BundleCapabilities" crates/epiphany-bundle/src/ → 0 matches. b. grep -rn -B4 "struct BundleCapabilities" crates/epiphany-bundle/src/ | grep -i derive → report every line, and confirm none names Default. The -B4 is what crosses the newline the old regex could not. c. Quote the complete definition of BundleCapabilities verbatim in the report — the struct, its attributes, and every impl block on it.

   (c) is the one that cannot pass vacuously. (a) and (b) are greps for absence, and a grep for absence is defeated by a rename — the same defect that made gate 6a vacuous (see pin 3b). A quoted definition is read, not matched, so it cannot be satisfied by searching for the wrong string.

   If (c) cannot be produced because the type does not exist under that name, that is a pin 3 violation and a finding — not a gate that passed. Zero output from (a) or (b) means "no Default" only when (c) shows the type is there to have one. Report (c) first, so (a) and (b) are read against a type known to exist. 6a. No production composition path uses the fixture constructor. (Scope widened in review round 1: this checked epiphany-textproj only, while touch row 7 gives epiphany-testkit the real authority too — so a synthetic_for_fixture leak there was ungated.) Run over both: grep -rn "synthetic_for_fixture" crates/epiphany-textproj/src/ crates/epiphany-testkit/src/ Report each match with its enclosing item. In epiphany-textproj every match must be inside a #[cfg(test)] module. In epiphany-testkit, which is a fixture crate whose non-test code legitimately builds fixtures, each match must instead be justified against §0.4's rule: only production composition paths wrap the real constant, and roundtrip.rs / bundle_harness.rs carry both kinds. Name which kind each site is; an unclassified site is a finding.

   This gate is vacuous if the constructor is not named synthetic_for_fixture. ROUND 17. It greps for that exact literal, and pin 3b offered the name as an example until round 17 pinned it. Any other name returns 0 matches and this gate reports a pass having checked nothing. Before trusting the count, confirm the constructor's actual name against pin 3b and quote its signature — a zero here means "no leaks" only if the string searched for is the string that exists.

7. spec/vectors/decode_vectors.txt unmodified — git diff --cached --stat -- spec/vectors/decode_vectors.txt is empty; and no schema major or minor moved, by the method below. ROUND 17: the second clause named no method, so it could be satisfied by not being checked.

   Compare values, not diffs. Quote the working-tree value of each of FORMAT_MAJOR (header.rs:47), FORMAT_MINOR (header.rs:53) and Manifest::SCHEMA (manifest.rs:601) beside its value at HEAD:

   grep -n "pub const FORMAT_MAJOR\|pub const FORMAT_MINOR" crates/epiphany-bundle/src/header.rs
   grep -n "const SCHEMA" crates/epiphany-bundle/src/manifest.rs
   git show HEAD:crates/epiphany-bundle/src/header.rs   | grep -n "pub const FORMAT_M"
   git show HEAD:crates/epiphany-bundle/src/manifest.rs | grep -n "const SCHEMA"
   

   → the two sides identical. Report all four outputs, not the conclusion.

   A diff-based check was written here first and withdrawn in the same round. Grepping git diff for the constant names goes non-empty when the constants merely move — a comment added above them is enough — so it fails on a change that did not happen. A value comparison cannot. Pin 3's rung type asserts no schema major or minor changes; this is the only item that checks that assertion, and until round 17 it named no method at all.

---

§6. Staging and boundary

Stage only §2's files, by explicit path. Never git add -A.

A concurrent session commits here. Re-check HEAD before staging and before commit. Never git reset, git restore --staged, git checkout, git stash.

Out of bounds — MUST NOT be read, written, or staged: the entire spikes/ tree, spec/PLAN_EDITOR_APP.md, spec/CONTRACT_EDITOR_*.md, spec/ANALYSIS_GENESIS_PERSISTENCE.md, spec/ANALYSIS_TEXT_RUN_PRIMITIVES.md, spec/DRAFT_T4_FIXTURE_RECIPE.md, crates/epiphany-render-svg/**, crates/epiphany-glyphs/**, crates/epiphany-editor-gui/**, crates/epiphany-testkit/benches/editor_pipeline.rs, the root Cargo.toml, .claude/worktrees/.

Do not implement any part of P13-S16. This rung unblocks it; it does not begin it. No create_staff, create_staff_group, or invariant change.

Do not bump CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION past 0 — pin 2. The bump to 1 belongs to S16.

The executing agent MUST NOT commit. Leave the work staged.

Execution is AUTHORISED as of ratification, 2026-08-08. (This read "no execution work may begin at all until this contract is ratified"; ratification has happened.) The boundaries above are unchanged and remain binding — stage only §2's files by explicit path, never git add -A, re-check HEAD before staging and before committing, and never git reset/restore/checkout/stash.

Leave the work STAGED. Do not commit. The execution report is then subject to independent review before completion is accepted, covering in particular M7's three observations and its control.

---

§7. Report requirements

Counts corrected 2026-08-07 in review round 1 — items 1, 2 and 4 each named a figure the document had outgrown. This is the same drift as §3's header and gate 1: three independent stale counts of the same three lists. Prefer "every item 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 — 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.

3. The staged file list, and the test-count delta in gate 1's three buckets.

4. Every required test in §3 — currently eleven (1–9 plus 10a and 10b, added in round 4) — by name, each passing, with tests 2 and 3 shown to produce different errors, and the same for tests 6/2 and 8/5. 4a. For every mutation in §4, the observation it owes. For most that is the named test it breaks; for two it cannot be, and this item said otherwise until round 7.

   Mutation	Owes
   M1	its stale, self-consistent fixture observed to open successfully under mismatching caps, plus test 2 failing
   M2	its corrupt fixture observed returning CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild with both fields, plus test 3 failing
   M3	its base-free fixture observed rejected by the wrongly widened check with CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild and both fields, plus test 4 failing
   M4	no test — none is possible. It owes the observation that the Default impl compiles, and the explicit statement that no test can catch it. That is why pin 3's prohibition is a review rule
   M5a	serialize_document observed supplying the deliberately changed authority, plus test 10a failing and the provenance of the asserted operand
   M5b	test 10b fails with both error fields asserted, plus the provenance of both operands
   M6	the mutated outcomes M6 specifies for both halves — test 5's stale commit observed to succeed and reopen at the new generation, and test 9's unchanged inherited-base commit observed rejected by the broadened rule. A failing test is necessary and not sufficient; counts and conditions live in M6, not here
   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 breaks — M4 is observed to compile and M7 is expected to succeed. A report obeying 4a literally could not be written, and the honest response would have been to invent a test for one of them.

   Three mutations were found unrunnable across rounds 2 and 3 (no observation mechanism, cannot fail, nothing asserting the broken behaviour). This item exists so a fourth is caught here rather than in review — which required admitting that "breaks a test" is not the only shape an observation takes.

4b. Quote, verbatim, every fixture-construction operand in tests 10a and 10b, and confirm each is still a literal. Not "the literal 0" — there are three, and they must be listed individually:

#	Test	Operand	Must be
i	10a	the value asserted against capabilities()	literal 0
ii	10b	the argument to synthetic_for_fixture(_)	literal 0
iii	10b	the committed base's ReductionAlgorithmVersion(_)	literal 0

Widened in round 6, which found the previous wording protected one operand where test 10b has two. Item 4b said "the literal 0 in tests 10a and 10b" and "both literals", counting one per test. But 10b constructs its fixture from two independent literals, and replacing both (ii) and (iii) with CURRENT_REDUCTION_ALGORITHM_VERSION keeps the synthetic_for_fixture call exactly where it is, restores the tautology in full, and leaves every test green.

And the error arm cannot catch it. Test 10b's Err branch asserts base == 0, but in the unmutated run the reopen returns Ok and that branch never executes. The literal guarding the tautology sits on a path taken only under mutation — so a tidy-up of (ii) and (iii) is invisible to the suite, invisible to the error arm, and visible only here. This item is the sole protection, which is exactly what round 5 concluded when it retracted M5b's claim of a structural guarantee — and round 5 then wrote the check too narrowly to deliver it.

5. A count of call sites updated per crate, against §0.4's table as corrected in review rounds 1 and 2 (open 60, create 32) — any discrepancy is a finding. Count Bundle-typed receivers, not the token .commit(. (Attribution fixed in round 3: round 1 moved §0.4's table 57 → 60; round 2 fixed the "Rung type" paragraph, touch rows 2 and 5, and struck the project.rs production claim that made the table's textproj entries misleading. Both rounds are load-bearing here.)
6. Confirmation that every refusal M7 removed was restored — M7 names which, and the count is not repeated here; it said "three" from round 1 until round 9 caught it, having survived round 8's correction of that same number in two other places — and that none of text_projection.tex, textproj/src/parse.rs, textproj/src/vectors.rs or textproj/src/lib.rs appears in the staged diff.
7. Whether pin 9 minted a new requirement label, and therefore whether touch row 12 was used.
8. Confirmation that the pin-3c suspension marker naming this contract is gone from testkit/src/roundtrip.rs. If it is still in the tree, obligation 3's restoration did not happen, whatever the prose says.
9. The serialize.rs:157 dead branch, recorded as a finding and not repaired — see the note under M7.
10. M6's replaced second half, with the reachability result stated: that no caller can hold an open Bundle with a stale inherited base, so pin 3a's scope is forced rather than chosen.
11. Anything contradicting this contract.