The guard checked whether the installed SDK satisfied the pin. Nobody had
ever checked whether anyone had READ it. Those are different questions, and
the gap between them was a whole version range: pinned >=0.2.111,<0.3,
premises source-verified through 0.2.110, installed 0.2.120. Every build in
between was admissible and unexamined — `uv sync --upgrade` would have kept
806 tests green on an SDK no one had opened. Written red first: a guard
handed 0.2.140 returned it without complaint.
_VERIFIED_THROUGH is the ratchet. It records the newest build actually read
at source, and a newer one fails naming the five premises to re-check. The
pin is untouched and was never the defect — measurement dissolved the
premise that it needed lifting. It was not too narrow but too wide, and a
wider permission is not repaired by widening it further.
The premises themselves were prose the failure message recited. Nothing
tested them, so one that stopped being true would have surfaced on the one
live paid run (S10, D6). They are now a table introspected against the
installed package, with the printed prose derived from that same table so a
checked attribute cannot go unreported or a reported one unchecked. The
premise introspection structurally cannot see — that query() yields an
AssistantMessage then a closing ResultMessage — is named apart, and is the
honest reason the human reading still has to happen.
Value-proved, not merely named: disabling the ratchet reds 1 test, stubbing
the inventory to "no gaps" reds 3, re-hardcoding the prose reds 1, and
lowering _VERIFIED_THROUGH below the installed build reds the real
installed-version test rather than only a monkeypatched one.
0.2.139 read at source (0.2.120 -> 0.2.139, latest on PyPI today; STATE said
0.2.134, measured 08-09 and stale). The public query.py is byte-identical,
every premise field keeps its type and default, and the parser changes are
additive. One needed a look: 0.2.139 added a skills path defaulting
setting_sources to ["user", "project"], which would have undone the S10
isolation fix — it fires only on None, so the explicit [] is out of reach.
Prose carrying stale version claims moved with the reading, never ahead of
it: each was re-verified at 0.2.139 before being restated.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014dKDjVG7qrBh9NkAAxutqN
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
The sweep the §12 work called for, run over every test reading a static repo
document. Enumerated population: four such guards (method-spec, ingest-spec,
README, pyproject). Three were already sound — the two spec guards were
anchored in sessions 14/15, and the README guard extracts flags by regex and
cross-checks them against real --help output with explicit vacuity guards.
The fourth was green-but-dead, and it was MEASURED, not inferred:
`assert _PIN in _PYPROJECT.read_text()` stayed GREEN (4 passed) while the real
dependency drifted to >=0.2.110 below the guard's own verified floor, because
the literal survived in a trailing comment. The comment above it claimed
"Detach-proof: the pin and this guard cannot drift apart silently" — the exact
drift it named is what it let through.
Three narrowings, each one a measured degeneration rather than a precaution:
- ANCHOR: match inside the `dependencies = [...]` array, fail-closed with
ValueError when the array is renamed (a silently empty slice would make
every assertion vacuous).
- QUOTED FORM: the slice alone still did not detach — a comment sits inside
the array too. Requiring `"<pin>"` with comments stripped does.
- VALUE BINDING: _PIN is now DERIVED from _VERIFIED_FLOOR/_CEILING via
_pin_for(), so the range this guard enforces and the pin it demands cannot
part company. The error message derives from it too, instead of carrying a
third hand-maintained copy that could lie.
Five permanent red-proofs replace the manual spot-check, all run against a
mutated COPY of the text, never pyproject.toml itself. Measured degeneracy:
substring-anywhere restored -> 1 red; anchor widened to the whole file -> 2
red; the derived-pin binding severed -> 2 red.
Suite 683 -> 688; ruff, format and mypy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FcKMxznPVR9zfdsdu5Ztdn
- File-layer decision vocabulary (§4.2 set) with SKIP semantics — an unknown
decision never reaches the store (C-F7, the review's run proof is the fixture)
- Fail-fast caps (max_files / max_rationale_chars) via InboxLimitError raised
OUTSIDE the tolerant try — a cap breach is never swallowed as a skip
- R-6 id grammar (mirrors ingest _ID_RE) as a pydantic pattern on
VerdictDocument.id AND re-checked in write_verdict, since model_copy(update=)
bypasses model validation — traversal ids can no longer write outside the inbox
- promotion._filename_token: any sanitised id maps to a content hash — 'e/vil'
can no longer clobber the distinct id 'evil' (restarbeid-funn 2)
- SDK pinned >=0.2.111,<0.3 + version guard test naming the sdk_client.py
attribute premises; resolved 0.2.120, all premises re-verified against it
- sdk_client read loop bound offline with REAL SDK message types (R-4/R-5):
text aggregation, error fail-paths, usage/cost extraction, _total_tokens
fail-closed, non-positive budget guard
- test_sdk_isolation comment no longer claims the --system-prompt ""
serialization the test body does not bind (honesty rule §1)
Guard-G2 assessment (guard-plan §4): the allowlist + caps + id grammar landed
here are G2's necessary part; an optional scan_output depth pass over
rationale (still a verbatim prose channel into the fold prompt, R-9) remains
relevant as a later additive session — the trigger picture is unchanged.
4 detach proofs red → restored green. Full gate: 389 passed (365→389),
ruff+format+mypy clean; golden + shared/ + runs/s10/ byte-untouched.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
