0.5.0 is the axis separation `de09711` built: `Risk` (assessment) alongside
`Disposition` (action), `Policy.action_map` as the supported override, and the
fail-closed path pinned to both axes. Additive and measured to be so — 717
passing with no test changed, matrix 128/128 with 6/6 documented gaps, the
`PRESET_USER_UPLOAD` grading table unchanged row by row. Plus the field FP
measurement (`d1bff60`) and the 0.3.3 behaviour-change correction (`d3d0928`).
WHY THIS COMMIT TOUCHES EIGHT FILES AND 0.4.0's TOUCHED THREE
0.4.0's release commit updated CHANGELOG, pyproject.toml and __init__.py, and
deferred README deliberately: the install block should not name a tag before a
clean-venv install had proven it resolved. Sound reasoning, and the proof step
never ran — so tag v0.4.0 permanently advertises v0.3.4. The tag is not moved.
The ordering is.
Sweeping every tracked file for a version claim, instead of ticking the four
surfaces the checklist named, found five more that no release had ever touched:
SECURITY.md "pre-1.0 (0.2.x)" — the one with a consequence for an
outsider: it named a support window two minor lines
behind the code.
README.md "**Status:** v0.3" — the front page, stale since 0.4.0.
docs/BRIEF.md "v0.2 (alpha)" — stale since 0.3.0.
CLAUDE.md "v0.2 (alpha)" and "12 moduler" where src/ has 15.
docs/ADOPTION-BRIEF "703 passing" where the suite is at 717.
Measurement provenance is deliberately left alone: "New in v0.4.0", "verified
identical on 0.2.0 and 0.3.1", "measured against the v0.3.1 tag", every
"post-0.4.0 tree" in LIMITATIONS. Bumping those falsifies the record instead of
updating it, which is why this cannot be a sed sweep — the surfaces have to be
sorted into current-state and provenance before a single edit.
Found because llm-ingestion-okf took our report of this defect class as a
hypothesis about their own repo, measured it, found a worse instance on their
public front page, and sent back the generalization: writing down a trap is not
the same as applying it.
VERIFIED BEFORE COMMITTING, NOT AFTER
717 passed; coverage 128/128 recall, 6/6 documented gaps hold
docs/LIMITATIONS.md: 33 items, README says 33
fp-sweep reproduced all three published numbers exactly on the bumped tree —
vendor-harvest 98/185 (53.0%), generated-notes 88/547 (16.1%),
reference-corpus 133/389 (34.2%) — and self-docs runs clean, so the
untested script survived the bump it imports names from
forge description: 178 codepoints, under the 180 cap
no tracked file carries a stale current-state version claim
Still to prove before the tag: a clean-venv install from this commit's sha, and
`git show <sha>` over the README. The install proves the package builds; only
the grep proves the text the tag will carry is right. That second check is the
one the old ordering could not perform, because by then the tag existed.
- README: tests badge 275->357; status v0.1->v0.2 (repo is 0.2.0; the v1.0
bump belongs to the Session G freeze, not this docs pass); add three
honest-limits — lone-HIGH-in-trusted-prose->WARN, vacuous quarantine-floor,
Cyrillic/Latin homoglyph-mix false positive.
- docs/BRIEF.md: drop "No code yet" pre-implementation framing -> implemented v0.2.
- docs/OKF-INGESTION-BRIEF.md 4: correct cross-link control language —
absolute https / references/ targets are spec-permitted, not rejected.
- Add SECURITY.md (private Forgejo disclosure) + CONTRIBUTING.md (stdlib-only
core, Iron-Law TDD, no trailers, Forgejo-only invariants).
Replace the unverified/absolute novelty statement with the defensible
four-part-contract form, verified against a focused adversarial PyPI+GitHub
survey (2026-07-15):
- BRIEF §11: 'assumed, not verified' -> verified survey with sources. Names
aig-guardian (real, query-time; blurs only the minimal-dep-library
differentiator), GuardLLM (nearest neighbour, runtime hardening, no
scan-before-persist / capability isolation / fail-secure), and ipi-scanner
(orphaned placeholder repo, recorded for honesty not as prior art).
- README: differentiator moved from 'library vs hosted/model' to the full
four-part write-time contract.
- PLAN §27-31: drop the unverifiable 'the first' superlative.
Also promotes the v1.0 session plan (PLAN-v1.md) and the cross-model review
(review-2026-07.md) into docs/ on the open/ mirror, referenced by PLAN.md's
re-sequencing addendum.
Based on the working, tested Layer B ingestion-gate in ms-ai-architect (2026-07-04):
- A: correct consumer 2 — it fetches authored Learn docs + code samples via the
microsoft-learn MCP, NOT the open Q&A forum / MSDN / Stack Overflow (that claim
was unverified/overstated); low-trust surface is intra-document. Repo/name
reconciled: the consumer is ms-ai-architect, no separate "MS AI Security plugin".
- B: §4.7 — trust tiers WITHIN a document (code sample / localized string vs
authored prose), not only across sources; carriers + critical block in any tier.
- C: §12 — consume the lexicon as pure imported functions, not the llm-security
scan CLI (which under-covers Markdown prose + base64-in-code-block, verified).
- D: §4.6 — fail-secure extends to scanner-unavailable: un-scannable ⇒ BLOCK.
Adds ms-ai-architect as the second reference implementation (output side).
Second target consumer named: MS AI Security plugin, an ingestion
pipeline over Microsoft Learn content that includes user-generated Q&A
(learn.microsoft.com/answers, plus ingested MSDN/Stack Overflow). This
is the high-untrust case where the contract is load-bearing, not
hygiene. New design principle 4.7: disposition scales with source trust
(pinned changelog = WARN; open UGC = quarantine/hard-fail on high
severity). Day-1 rationale: architectural controls are cheap to design
in, expensive to retrofit (consumer 1 is proving that at its A13).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01HPAmFyEVWbwvmSNVdXTu4d
