The reading direction existed only for someone standing in a clone. `consume`,
`contract_check` and `skill` moved from `tools/` into the package and are
reachable as `okf consume`, `okf check` and `okf skill`; `okf project` is new
and does the whole thing in one command.
The red measurement: a consumption skill generated from a checkout carried 4
lines naming that checkout by absolute path, 2 of them the commands the skill
tells a reader to run. It now names `okf consume` and `okf check`, and a test
asserts this repository appears in it nowhere, with a known-positive so the
zero is a measurement rather than a search that could not find.
The `tools/` files stay as ALIASES, not re-exports: a re-export binds copies of
the names into a second module object, so a caller patching one patches a
binding the implementation never reads. Two tests that monkeypatch okf_consume
went green again only under the alias. Every published reproduction block runs
unchanged.
The template and docs/consumption-contract.md (the section 7.4 known-positive)
are force-included into the wheel from the file they are authored in, so both
travel with the commands that cannot run without them and there is still one
authored copy of each.
Step 0, before any of it: okf build's default gained Arm E (--table-grid),
with --no-table-grid as its opt-out. The default moved to D plus F earlier the
same day on Arm F's published 5 of 12 -- a figure measured with Arm E ON.
Without it the fold has no joined table to fold, and the shipped default scored
2 of 12 with docx 0 of 3. Measured on the operator's folder: 30 md / 15
concepts on the new default against 43 / 28 without Arm E.
Install measurement from a fresh uv tool install, empty folder, this repository
nowhere on PYTHONPATH: 5 documents in, 15 concepts out, 0 references to tools/
in the generated skill, okf check conformant (15 rules, 0 findings).
Deviation stated rather than hidden: the order asked that
tests/test_okf_consume.py be left untouched. Two assertions in it read a PATH,
which is the one thing this work changes. Both were moved and the second made
stronger -- it now asserts every command the README recipe names is a
subcommand the CLI registers, which a file existing on disk never proved.
Suite 1414 -> 1427. ruff clean, mypy --strict clean over 21 files.
Record: docs/2026-09-08-o5-okf-project.md
Co-Authored-By: Claude <claude-opus-5>
The pre-pass delivered the right concept and the answer could not name it.
Measured by portfolio-optimiser 2026-09-08 over three paid arms: the gold
concept came back at rank 1 of 8 on 3 of 3 bundles, and the model answered
correctly on 1 of 3, because a delivered excerpt carried `concept_id`, body
text and nothing the document is known by. The previous session measured the
same gap from the other side: the provenance it had just written into every
concept did not reach the payload at all.
`excerpt_for` now carries `title` unconditionally, and `req_number`, the SPEC
5.1 address `sources` and each locator key (`source_pages`, `source_sheet`,
`source_rows`, `source_lines`, `source_offset`) when the concept has them. A key
the producer did not write stays absent: an empty value would assert that they
wrote an empty one, which is the contract's 6.4 failure.
`sources` is read in BOTH YAML forms, on a measurement rather than a taste. K2
writes the flow form on 629 of 629 concepts; the largest N-bundle writes the
block form on 270 of 270 and carries no locator key at all, so a flow-only
reader delivers that bundle with no address whatsoever. Reading the block form
is not a licence to write it - the emission rule is untouched, because the
line-oriented parser still cannot round-trip a block list. A `sources` value
this reader cannot decode is named (`sources_unreadable`), never dropped into
the same silence as an absent one.
Contract 8 gains the requirement and the checker gains its code
(`excerpt_unnamed`, 15 rules now, was 14): an excerpt a reader cannot name is
one an answer cannot cite, whatever its rank. `req_number`, `sources` and the
locators are SHOULD, not MUST - they are conditional on the producer, and a
bundle whose concepts carry no identifier cannot deliver one.
K2 controls, same question and same k, before against a frozen copy of the tool
at b6a8c8b: the RANKING does not move - the same 8 concept ids in the same
order, identical `text_sha256`, identical `withheld`, identical denominators
(629 = 621 + 8). The FIELD is what moved: payload 108 877 -> 111 744 B
(+2.63 %), budget spent 18 606 -> 20 907 (+287.6 B per excerpt), excerpt
members 9 -> 15, 83 changed lines. The contract document's own bytes moved with
8, so the budget instrument's known-positive moves with it: 10 349 -> 12 049
measured, 10 060 -> 11 719 raw, delta 289 -> 330.
New fixture `tests/fixtures/consume-provenance`: the two address forms and a
concept carrying neither address nor identifier. Purpose-built, because the two
real bundles are complementary and neither exercises both forms.
Suite 1347 (1339 before), ruff clean, mypy src clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <claude-opus-5>
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.
