The guard's coverage.py turned out to be readable from a session here — the
read boundary covers llm-security only. Counting it instead of estimating
corrected two published numbers and surfaced the real conformance blocker.
Counted, not estimated: CORE_CASES holds 134 cases (128 caught, 6 gap), not
the "126 classes + 4 gaps-must-hold" the extraction plan claimed. 105 are
convertible to static input/expected; 29 assert a runtime API surface this
repository does not own, and are named as out of scope rather than faked.
Measured while counting, and the reason the corpus is still blocked: the
commons lexicon and the guard's are two ports of one source file, and they
disagree. 83/83 patterns correspond, 64 byte-identical, 6 differ only by
escaping and are proven equivalent by string identity, and 13 behave
differently — with a witness input for each and misses in both directions.
Cause is two different ReDoS mitigations of the same table: the Node side
bounds the run ({0,256}), the guard excludes the anchor character ([^><]).
Each has a recall cost the other does not.
No data file changed. Behaviour preservation is a v0.1.0 invariant, so the
divergence is reported to the owning repositories, not fixed here. The 8
hybrid severities the guard's port assigns are deliberately NOT copied in —
a second-hand port is not the producing module.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FaYqid3mejFmd9ZHsiHgp3
