open/portfolio-optimiser-claude
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases 1 Activity

test(loadbearing): close the vacuous-negative class across the whole suite

Browse source 
Oekt 17 found the class on four named files. This sweep ENUMERATES it: 42 negative
substring assertions across 21 test files (STATE's "~34 across 23" was a premise --
measured, it is 42/21). Sixteen of them measured an absence without ever having
shown presence; all sixteen now carry a positive control asserting the searched-for
string PRESENT in the source artifact, in EXACTLY the form the negative looks for.

Files touched: test_costsim, test_loop, test_okf (3 sites), test_preflight,
test_run_entrance, test_s10_run_layer, test_sdk_version_guard, test_simulation
(2 sites), test_step1_expel, test_step5_refine, test_step7_async_loop,
test_step8_promotion, test_valuereport.

VALUE-PROOF (green-without / red-with, per the oekt-17 rule that a detach proof is
not a value proof). Seven source/fixture mutations, each making the negative vacuous:

  M1 verdict fixture loses the realization signal        VALUE-PROVEN
  M2 decoy fixture loses its text                        VALUE-PROVEN
  M3 renderer stops emitting typed section headings      VALUE-PROVEN
  M4 promotion stops writing the marker                  VALUE-PROVEN (pass 2)
  M5 fold stops rendering the realization surface        VALUE-PROVEN
  M6 report stops labelling the cost section             VALUE-PROVEN
  M7 preflight stops importing the SDK                   VALUE-PROVEN

M4 needed pass 2: a PRECEDING assertion caught the same mutation, hiding the new
control behind it -- the oekt-17 lesson reproduced. The remaining nine controls are
vacuity guards (non-emptiness / form-presence) whose mutation would have to break
the source artificially; they are stated as guards, not claimed as value-proven.

MEASURED FINDING (test_loop): the FIRST-RUN-MARKER negative cannot be given a
positive control at all. Within a run only the CHECKER's critique is fed back --
the proposer's own prior reasoning crosses no prompt boundary, not even within a
run. So that negative holds trivially. Left in place with the limitation stated in
the test rather than dressed up as a controlled seam; the CRITIQUE negative beside
it IS controlled and is the real seam.

Mutations were in-place on src/ and shared/ with original bytes restored and
sha-verified; git status clean before and after. Suite 688 -> 688 (assertions added
inside existing tests, no new test cases). ruff + mypy --strict green.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017Vc5PmZGjwuJypdhzKnJa5
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-07-31 21:39:28 +02:00
commit 30ba68a703
13 changed files with 98 additions and 5 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
tests/test_step7_async_loop_loadbearing.py
View file

@ -354,6 +354,10 @@ class TestAsyncFileLoopLoadBearing:
inbox = tmp_path / "inbox"
inbox.mkdir()
client_b, claimed_b = _run_b(inbox)
# Positive control: prompts were actually issued. `all()` over an empty list is
# vacuously True, so without this the control would pass for a run that never
# prompted the proposer at all.
assert client_b.prompts("proposer")
assert all(MARKER not in prompt for prompt in client_b.prompts("proposer"))
assert claimed_b == 25000