Advisor review found six gaps the session's own checks did not cover. The one
that mattered was outward-facing: the divergence report told the guard repo
that two sub-agent bounds were undocumented. That was wrong. lexicon.py's
module docstring documents them explicitly under "Bounded token gaps", and
git log -S dates {0,12} to the original port commit f397cd9 and [^><] to the
ReDoS fix cff0437. Every divergence on the guard's side is documented and
traceable. The claim rested on two sed slices of one file; an absence claim
needs a search over the whole repository. Corrected here and by coord.
lexicon/injection-lexicon.json 0.2.0 -> 0.3.0:
- pattern_id_space.alias_evidence records the two aliases separately instead
of averaging them. llm_ingestion_guard is verified — coverage.py asserts on
that exact string, so it is demonstrably what a guard finding carries.
llm_security is not: it is the pattern table's name, the finding producer
was never supplied, and the known Node finding shape uses title, not label.
- normalisations[].affects now keys on id, with the prose names kept beside it
as affects_labels. An internal cross-reference on label was a second
identity space inside the file the id exists to unify.
Detection data unmoved again: labels, patterns, flags and the ids and aliases
added in 7b70f5b are all byte-identical in sequence; 166/166 Node compiles.
Also: the README lexicon row described thematic families the file does not
have (they are severity families; the theme is the id prefix), and the
conformance convertibility table gained its missing second condition — a case
is buildable only if the label it asserts maps to data this repository
publishes. Eleven cases fail that test (entropy, decoded, the sanitize rows,
the OKF scans), so the buildable set is ~94, not 105.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FaYqid3mejFmd9ZHsiHgp3
A conformance fixture has to name a finding. The two runtimes that seed this
repository do not name the same pattern the same way -- llm-security says
"override: ignore previous instructions", the guard says
"override:ignore-previous" -- so until now no expected.json could be written
at all, including for the 64 patterns whose regex is byte-identical in both.
Each pattern now carries `id` plus an `aliases` object naming what each
seeding runtime calls it, and a top-level pattern_id_space block explains the
field, its provenance and its stability contract.
The id is adopted verbatim from the guard's port rather than invented here:
that port already carries both names, so the mapping is read from source data.
Matched by label <-> desc with em-dash normalised to hyphen, 83/83 one-to-one,
83 unique ids.
No detection data moved, and that is proven rather than asserted: labels,
patterns and flags are byte-identical in sequence, no flags key was invented
(78 before, 78 after), and stripping id + aliases + pattern_id_space
reproduces the previous committed file byte for byte -- 23566 bytes. All 83
patterns still compile in Node bare and under u (166/166) and in Python re
(83/83).
Neither consumer has ratified this id space; both were asked by coord today,
and the file records it as a proposal rather than implying agreement.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FaYqid3mejFmd9ZHsiHgp3
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
