Measured 2026-09-20 on an official documentation corpus of 594 sources built
with the shipped default gate `guard-trusted-source`: 17 sources were refused
OUTRIGHT -- `fail_secure` 3, `quarantine_review` 14 -- and 16 of them were
among 197 official documentation pages, the pages on hooks, skills,
permissions, errors, env-vars and authentication among them. The summary said
only `fail_secure`: 3/594. Three of the four facts a reader needs were missing:
the COUNT of documents the gate dropped (the existing `rejected (coded)` line
sums gate refusals and extraction failures, two failures with two different
remedies), the NAMES, and the way out. Rebuilt with `--gate none`, all 17 went
through untouched, so the refusal is the gate and not the readers.
`okf build` now prints a `Documents the gate refused WHOLE` section directly
under the denominator, carrying all four: the count with its denominator, the
names capped at ten with the rest in the bundle's `log.md`, the codes, and
`--gate none` for a source you vouch for yourself. The same fact goes to stderr
in one line, built from the same field, because `okf build > report.txt` is an
ordinary thing to do. `log.md` gains one bullet naming every refused document,
uncapped.
The exit code deliberately does not move. The build is valid -- every refusal
is coded, the conservation identity holds, and the bundle is a true record of
what the gate allowed. What was wrong was the silence.
A run the gate refused nothing from is byte-identical in both places, which is
the known-negative in the new suite: no bundle this repository ships was built
with a gate refusal, so this cannot have moved a byte measured here.
Also, and measuring nothing new:
- README gains `Known limitations` high up -- the gate's refusals and the way
out, the absent ceiling on what one run pays for images (a 70 KB PDF with 16
images under the declared limit reached 851 MB peak RSS; RLIMIT_AS is not
enforceable on this platform, so the 512 MiB per-link budget is the whole
bound), the three gates of this repository that are RED today (retrieval
5/7/8/9, MCP 2, accounting 2/3/6 -- all three re-run on this commit), what
the content accounting does not count, and the rough edges nothing is
planned for.
- The two `pip install` lines under "Install in detail" install `[extract]`.
The first screen does; those two did not, so the two recipes produced
different installations and the detailed one reports `resolved converter
path: unresolved (extractor_extra_missing)`.
- Version `1.0.0`, synced across pyproject, `__version__`, `uv.lock`, the four
README install lines, the install prose, the current-tag entry and the
CHANGELOG, where the two "after the 0.10.1 notes were written, untagged"
sections are folded in. It adds no capability over `v0.10.1`; what it adds
is that the tool says what it does not do.
Suite: 2325 passed, 2 skipped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
