23 falsifying mutations, each executed. Three of the first-pass assertions
were VACUOUS and the mutation runs are what found them:
* The contrast assertion compared status_band_top before and after
installing a panel — a FIXED POINT. The blanket rewrite the framing
exists to prevent (subtract the band from the status boundary too)
moved both readings together and passed. It is now anchored to an
independent formula: the physical window bottom minus the band height.
* The criterion-46 pixel test only checked that no pixel moved above the
band and none below it. Installing a panel reshapes the document to the
smaller height, and THAT produced the whole diff — so the test passed
with the band painting nothing at all. It now counts differing pixels
in the divider row and the band's cell rows directly: content produced,
not an invariant preserved.
* A2B-3's fixture compared two ASCII documents, which in a monospace
family have identical glyph advances — so it could not tell the stable
probe from the document-glyph fallback. It now separates the two
derivations explicitly and asserts they produce different column counts
in the fixture, so the claim about which one the declaration uses is
discriminating.
And one about the CODE, not the tests: 'a v20 semantic session receives no
panel frame' is defence in depth, not the placement gate. The producer's
peer flag and the write-loop filter both suppress PanelFrame below the
panel version independently of panel_capable, so that claim passed with
the capability gate removed entirely. The load-bearing claim is placement:
the adopter's buffer must land in the pre-panel session's own DOCUMENT
window, because a side window it cannot render is simply invisible.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Lv428Fth9LRtffwJSsqH7T
Levi Neuwirth
71cc31bfbb