The corpus goes 83 -> 89 and scope_covered gains signatures/active-content.json.
The blocker in STATE dissolved under measurement, the same way last session's
13-pattern one did. "An id space for carriers/active-content/secret-egress" was one
question in name only; the three tables have three unrelated problems:
- active-content needed NO id space invented. label_format ("active:{class}") and the
constructs keys were already extracted verbatim from the seed runtime, and their
concatenation IS what it emits - verified by comparing the six keys to the six class
strings at its _flag call sites. What blocked these cases was never naming; it was
spec section 1, fixed in the parent commit.
- carriers has no adoptable id space AND an entry-point dependence underneath it.
- secret-egress is not an id question at all: the two runtimes carry DIFFERENT tables.
18 entries here against the guard's 25, cut at different granularities - this file's
single `GitHub Token` is four ids there, `Private Key PEM Block` three, `Database
connection string` four - with membership diverging both ways. `aws-access-key-id`
is the one clean 1:1, which is why exactly one egress case was ever offered. That
number was a symptom, not modesty.
Both blockers are now recorded under scope_planned.blockers, measured, replacing a
blanket "no runtime has agreed to an id space" that was wrong for both.
Generated from measurement, not written. Payloads were extracted from the seed
runtime's coverage.py by AST - evaluating each _scan_case argument in that module's
own namespace rather than retyping detection data - then run through its public
output gate, the same entry point the 83 lexicon cases used. The fixtures were then
re-read from disk by a separate checker that re-computed every digest, re-scanned the
bytes and applied exact-within-scope independently of the generator: 6 cases, 0
failed checks.
Six built from seven offered. The runtime's matrix drives two payloads at
`active:markdown-image`; measured, their in-scope finding sets are identical, and the
second's only distinguishing signal (entropy:base64-blob) falls outside every table
this repository publishes. Dropped rather than given a discriminated case id, and
named under omitted_payloads so the count reads as a decision.
These six prove LESS than the 83, and the manifest says so: their payloads come from
the only runtime implementing the table, so no second implementation's agreement
could be measured. They pin one runtime's behaviour as a contract a future
implementer can be held to - less than cross-runtime agreement, more than nothing.
llm-security's absence of the table is measured at b0de0ca, not assumed: a tree-wide
search finds no implementation, and `git log -S` over --all returns zero commits,
closing the "it was there once" reading. Absent table is not absent capability -
their entropy scanner reaches markdown-image URLs by another route - and the manifest
says that too.
Provenance and measurement for the active-content half are kept in their own blocks:
a different source structure at a different commit, and one pin must not stand for
two measurements. The guard's HEAD moved twice during the work (3c56d50 -> de09711 ->
398eb74); measurement ran at de09711 and the drift is recorded, including that
active_content.py is NOT identical to the 0bf0729 the data file pins - the change
adds a scan-cap self-safety finding and touches no construct.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CVouC9nsfrfV5jRSejxbvQ
llm-ingestion-pipeline-security states (coord message 2026-08-10T12:42:31Z)
that _LEX_PAYLOADS and the 83 pattern ids are an internal surface on their
side, with no README/CHANGELOG/docs statement promising id or payload
stability. Their gate is their own test suite, not a promise to this
repository. Their stated position: a future payload change diverges the
pin and should be re-pinned, not treated as a broken contract.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QJTZgfnjsaN14ti5HXiKhQ
The corpus was blocked on a decision nobody had to take. The 13 divergent
lexicon patterns were measured on witness inputs -- an attribute run padded
past 256 characters, an interior '<', an unclosed <script> -- and the corpus
payloads contain none of those shapes. Run through both runtimes' public
entry points, all 83 patterns produce identical lexicon finding sets, the 13
included. No winner picked, because the question was never reachable from
these inputs.
Measured at each runtime's entry point (scanForInjection() at b0de0ca,
scan_output(source=OUTPUT) at 0bf0729), never at a rebuilt regex table --
the layer mistake the divergence document already had to retract once.
- conformance/<case>/{input.txt,expected.json} x83, plus manifest.json
- spec/conformance-corpus.md, normative: bytes not text, id-only findings,
exact-within-scope, and observed_out_of_scope as evidence not expectation
Verified by a harness that does not share the generator's knowledge: reads
only the case directories, re-runs both runtimes, checks every field
including digests -- 83 cases, 0 failures. Severity agrees with what commons
publishes 83/83. Deleting the middle third of each input breaks 76 of 83
expectations; the 7 survivors are the shortest payloads, a weak mutation
rather than a weak fixture, and are recorded as such.
Scope is 83 and not 94 for a different reason than expected: the 11
non-lexicon convertible cases have no ratified cross-runtime finding id, and
writing them would mint a contract unilaterally in the same stroke as the
tag. Named in manifest.json under scope_planned.
Docs corrected in place rather than edited away: extraction-plan and
lexicon-port-divergence both claimed the 13 blocked the corpus.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WhXDL82FRrQWedEmUg12Pj
