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
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
bdcb1f1080