`okf check` had fifteen rules and none asked whether the skill and the payload
were talking about the same bundle. Reproduced on this HEAD before any code
moved: three pairs reported `conformant: 15 rules over 8 excerpts and 438
withheld entries, 0 findings` -- a skill generated from one corpus against
another corpus's payload, the unfilled template against that payload, and a
payload sharing the skill's `bundle_id` at a foreign `ref`. All three now exit 1
with one `bundle_mismatch` finding over 16 rules.
BOTH halves are compared and the `ref` half is load-bearing: three distinct
builds on this machine carry one `bundle_id`, so an id comparison would pass a
stale skill. SS 3.3: "a version is the producer's assertion; a ref is a fact
about bytes". An identity the rule cannot read is a finding, never a silent
pass -- that is what refuses the unfilled template.
No new field: the identity was already in the generated skill's prose, now
factored into `skill.identity_line` and read back by
`contract_check.skill_identity`. Generated skill bytes unchanged, measured on
both tracked bundles on one interpreter.
The rule's first real find is this repository's own hand-made
`skills/okf-consume/SKILL.md`, which predates `okf skill` and declares no
identity a reader can act on: 1 of 1. Nine tests that asserted the old, false
conformance now pair a skill with its own bundle's payload.
Measured, nothing else moved: `~/okf-test/dokumenter` `diff -r` empty old
source vs new on one interpreter (52 files, 26 concepts), `okf project` still
byte-equal to `okf build`, K2 pin unmodified and green (453 concepts, ranks
1,1,1,1,1,5), known-negative `{}` unchanged at 9 findings.
Report: docs/2026-09-10-k3-runde15-bundle-mismatch.md
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Fourteen rules, each with its own code: one "invalid" verdict over fourteen
different defects is a diagnostic no caller can act on. The report quotes its
own denominators -- rules run, excerpts and withheld entries examined -- because
a checker that exempted itself from section 5 would be stating the rule it
breaks.
Three exit codes, not two. "The check did not run" and "the check failed" are
different outcomes, and an unread file reported as a failed check is the fourth
face of the verification law.
The shipped template plus its example payload is the known-positive arm, so a
checker that refuses everything cannot be green on the thirteen negative ones.
A last test asserts every literal the checker enforces appears in the contract
document: two copies of a closed set drift, and the copy nobody reads is the
one that goes wrong.
996 -> 1023 tests.
