feat(toolbox): the judgement through the same door -- validate-proposal, verdict-key, capture-verdict

B's premise applied to the three steps that DECIDE a proposal: a proposal authored outside po --
by a human, or by an agent that is not po -- now meets the blocking deterministic gate, mints the
learning key, and is captured as a Verdict, all without a chat client on the way.

Three thin adapters, no second implementation. The reason is the one the first four doors were
built on, but it bites harder here: the refusal SENTENCE is fed back verbatim into the next
attempt by step 5, so a door that reworded it would break the repair loop while still looking
correct. The probes assert the sentence, not a substring two stages share.

One measurement decided a design detail. The IR writes whole magnitudes as JSON integers
(30000), the run path carries the pydantic float, and verdicts._mint_id hashes the raw value --
so minting from the undeclared JSON would hand out a DIFFERENT verdict id than the debate does
for the same proposal. The door therefore reads the proposal through SavingsProposal and feeds
model_dump() to the public features_from_ir; the probe pins both forms and asserts they differ,
so the shortcut cannot come back silently.

A blocked proposal exits 3, carrying the verdict rather than an exception envelope. "You asked
right and the answer is no" is the same fact whether a file was missing or a claim was
infeasible, and a caller that only reads the exit code must not see a blocked proposal as a
cleared one.

Fasit outside the door in every arm: the base's own checked-in golden suite (written before the
toolbox existed, so it cannot have been fitted to it), a cost baseline authored in the test, a
method cap computed by hand from the fixture, and the public minting rule. Each refusal arm has
an rc-0 control on an argv that would otherwise be accepted.

STATED LIMIT: the input-grounding stage (P7, stage 0b) has no flag here. It falsifies a proposal
against the rendered prompt the model received, and an outside caller has no such prompt.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

CLAUDE.md

@@ -34,6 +34,11 @@ Python ≥3.10. MAF (`agent-framework-core` 1.16.0, `-orchestrations` 1.1.1 —
   `costsim`/`hitl`/`preflight` er operatørverktøy, ikke produktets inngang, og hvert navn her er et
   navn frysen må bære. Verktøykassen er der fordi den er det ENE de to andre ikke kan brukes til:
   hver vei gjennom `run` bygger en chatklient, og stegene den bygger på trenger ingen modell.
+  Underkommandoene er stegenes egne navn (`navigate-bundle`, `cost-baseline`, `retrieve-chunks`,
+  `prepass-admit`, `validate-proposal`, `verdict-key`, `capture-verdict`) og hver er en TYNN
+  adapter over den funksjonen kjørestien kaller — aldri en andre implementasjon. Exit 0 kjørte,
+  2 feil kall, 3 NEKTET med grunnen navngitt; et forslag den deterministiske validatoren BLOKKERER
+  er også 3, og bærer dommen (ordrett grunn + stadiet) framfor en unntaks-konvolutt.
   Pinnet av `tests/test_console_entry_points.py` mot den INSTALLERTE
   distribusjonens metadata, ikke mot TOML-en: en `[project.scripts]`-linje som aldri er `uv sync`-et
   er en påstand, ikke en kommando.

README.md

@@ -100,10 +100,24 @@ uv run portfolio-optimiser-toolbox cost-baseline --bundle-dir <base> --project-i
 
 # Admit (or refuse, by name) a declared pre-pass cut before it may shape a run
 uv run portfolio-optimiser-toolbox prepass-admit --payload <cut.json> --bundle-dir <base>
+
+# Run the blocking deterministic gate on a proposal written OUTSIDE the framework.
+# Exit 3 carries the verdict: the verbatim refusal sentence and the stage that wrote it.
+uv run portfolio-optimiser-toolbox validate-proposal \
+  --proposal shared/examples/bygg-energi-mikro/validator-input.json \
+  --cost-baseline <project-prices.json>
+
+# The learning key a verdict on that proposal will arrive under — without deciding anything
+uv run portfolio-optimiser-toolbox verdict-key --proposal <proposal.json>
+
+# Mint an expert's judgement into the Verdict the store holds (stdout is the on-disk form)
+uv run portfolio-optimiser-toolbox capture-verdict --proposal <proposal.json> \
+  --decision approved --rationale "why"
 ```
 
 Each subcommand calls the same function the run path calls — not a copy of it. That is what makes
-the answers you get here the answers the debate gets.
+the answers you get here the answers the debate gets: a proposal a human wrote meets the same
+stages, in the same order, with the same sentence, as one an agent produced.
 
 Verify the install by running the whole suite from the clean clone:
 

src/portfolio_optimiser/toolbox.py

@@ -2,15 +2,18 @@
 
 This is B's premise made callable. The framework's own CLI (``portfolio_optimiser.run``) drives a
 MAF debate and therefore constructs a chat client on every path through it; an outside caller —
-a human at a terminal, or an agent that is NOT po — cannot reach ``navigate_bundle`` or
+a human at a terminal, or an agent that is NOT po — cannot reach ``navigate_bundle``,
-``retrieve_chunks`` through that door without paying for a model. The steps themselves need no
+``retrieve_chunks`` or ``validate_proposal`` through that door without paying for a model. The steps themselves need no
 model at all. This module exposes exactly those steps, and nothing else.
 
-**One CLI, four subcommands, one core call each.** Each subcommand parses arguments, calls the
+**One CLI, one core call per subcommand.** Each subcommand parses arguments, calls the
 SAME function the run path calls, writes the result as JSON on stdout, and returns an exit code
 that says what happened: ``0`` the step ran, ``2`` the call was malformed (argparse), ``3`` the
 step refused and the refusal is named in the JSON. There is no fourth code and no silent zero —
-the exit code is the only signal a calling agent has before it reads a byte.
+the exit code is the only signal a calling agent has before it reads a byte. A proposal the
+deterministic gate BLOCKS is a ``3`` as well, and carries the verdict rather than an exception:
+"you asked right and the answer is no" is the same fact whether a file was missing or a claim
+was infeasible, and a caller that only reads rc must not see a blocked proposal as a cleared one.
 
 **No re-implementation, and that is the load-bearing part.** Every handler below is a thin
 adapter: it converts strings to the types the core function already takes and converts what came
@@ -30,10 +33,26 @@ import argparse
 import json
 import sys
 from collections.abc import Mapping, Sequence
+from dataclasses import dataclass
+from pathlib import Path
 from typing import Any
 
 from portfolio_optimiser import okf, prepass
+from portfolio_optimiser.contracts import FeedbackContract
 from portfolio_optimiser.datasource import retrieve_chunks
+from portfolio_optimiser.ir import SavingsProposal
+from portfolio_optimiser.validator import (
+    ValidatedProposal,
+    rejection_stage,
+    validate_proposal,
+)
+from portfolio_optimiser.verdicts import (
+    ProposalFeatures,
+    capture_verdict,
+    features_from_ir,
+    verdict_key,
+    verdict_to_dict,
+)
 
 __all__ = ["main"]
 
@@ -48,6 +67,19 @@ REFUSED = 3
 _REFUSALS = (ValueError, FileNotFoundError, OSError)
 
 
+@dataclass(frozen=True)
+class Refused:
+    """A step that RAN, whose answer is NO — carried out with the full result, not an error.
+
+    ``validate_proposal`` returning a ``Rejection`` is the deterministic gate doing its job, so
+    the payload is the step's own verdict (decision, the verbatim reason, the stage that wrote
+    it) and not an exception envelope. The exit code is still ``REFUSED``, because a calling
+    agent reads the code before it reads a byte, and a blocked proposal that answered ``0``
+    would be indistinguishable from a validated one to everything that only checks rc."""
+
+    payload: Mapping[str, Any]
+
+
 def navigate_bundle_command(args: argparse.Namespace) -> Mapping[str, Any]:
     """``navigate-bundle`` — open a knowledge base and report what navigation reached.
 
@@ -111,8 +143,120 @@ def prepass_admit_command(args: argparse.Namespace) -> Mapping[str, Any]:
     }
 
 
+def _proposal_from(path: str) -> SavingsProposal:
+    """The proposal IR, read the ONE way the repository reads it: Pydantic over the same
+    ``SavingsProposal`` the run path constructs.
+
+    Deliberately not ``json.loads`` straight into the feature mapping. The IR writes whole
+    magnitudes as JSON integers (``30000``), the run path carries the pydantic FLOAT, and
+    ``verdicts._mint_id`` hashes the raw value — so a door that minted from the undeclared JSON
+    would hand out a DIFFERENT verdict id than the debate does for the same proposal, which is
+    the one thing the learning key may not do (A5)."""
+    return SavingsProposal.model_validate_json(Path(path).read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
+
+
+def _method_caps(path: str) -> Mapping[str, float]:
+    """The method-cap registry as DATA (F8): measure type -> the method-scoped max fraction.
+
+    Read as the registry the core function already takes, never merged with the built-in one —
+    ``validate_proposal`` treats a supplied registry as the whole registry, and a door that
+    quietly unioned them would apply a cap the caller did not ask for."""
+    caps = json.loads(Path(path).read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
+    if not isinstance(caps, dict):
+        raise ValueError(f"method caps must be an object of measure -> fraction, got {type(caps)}")
+    return {str(measure): float(fraction) for measure, fraction in caps.items()}
+
+
+def _features_of(proposal: SavingsProposal) -> ProposalFeatures:
+    """The run path's own IR -> features mapping, reached through its PUBLIC name.
+
+    ``verdicts.features_from_ir`` is public for exactly this reason (A5, one minting rule), and
+    it is fed ``model_dump()`` rather than the file's own dict so the magnitudes are the
+    validated floats the debate mints from."""
+    return features_from_ir(proposal.model_dump())
+
+
+def validate_proposal_command(args: argparse.Namespace) -> Mapping[str, Any] | Refused:
+    """``validate-proposal`` — the blocking deterministic gate, method cap included.
+
+    The whole of B rests on this one: a proposal authored OUTSIDE po — by a human, or by an
+    agent that is not po — must meet the same stages, in the same order, with the same verbatim
+    refusal sentence, as one a MAF agent produced. The sentence matters as much as the verdict:
+    Step 5 feeds it back into the next attempt, so a door that reworded it would break the
+    repair loop while still looking correct.
+
+    ``cost_baseline_anchored`` is carried out rather than implied. Stage 0 only runs when a
+    baseline was given, and an UNANCHORED "validated" means something much weaker than an
+    anchored one — four paid rounds were measured reasoning about magnitudes nobody priced.
+
+    STATED LIMIT: the input-grounding stage (P7, stage 0b) has no flag here. It falsifies a
+    proposal against the rendered prompt the model received, and an outside caller has no such
+    prompt; a file pretending to be one would be a different measurement wearing its name."""
+    proposal = _proposal_from(args.proposal)
+    baseline = (
+        None if args.cost_baseline is None else okf.load_cost_baseline_file(args.cost_baseline)
+    )
+    caps = None if args.method_caps is None else _method_caps(args.method_caps)
+    result = validate_proposal(proposal, baseline=baseline, method_caps=caps)
+    common = {
+        "project_id": proposal.project_id,
+        "measure": proposal.measure,
+        "claimed_saving_nok": proposal.claimed_saving_nok,
+        "cost_baseline_anchored": baseline is not None,
+    }
+    if isinstance(result, ValidatedProposal):
+        return {
+            "decision": "validated",
+            **common,
+            "nominal_feasible": result.nominal_feasible,
+            "p10": result.p10,
+            "p50": result.p50,
+            "p90": result.p90,
+        }
+    return Refused(
+        {
+            "decision": "rejected",
+            **common,
+            "reason": result.reason,
+            # Which falsifier wrote the sentence, named by the module that owns the wordings —
+            # never re-derived here, or the door and the validator could disagree about one run.
+            "stage": rejection_stage(result.reason),
+        }
+    )
+
+
+def verdict_key_command(args: argparse.Namespace) -> Mapping[str, Any]:
+    """``verdict-key`` — the id an expert verdict on THIS proposal will arrive under.
+
+    Available without capturing a decision nobody has made yet: a caller can stamp its own
+    artefact with the key, hand the proposal to a human, and find the verdict again when it
+    comes back."""
+    features = _features_of(_proposal_from(args.proposal))
+    return {
+        "verdict_id": verdict_key(features),
+        "affected_codes": sorted(features.affected_codes),
+        "measure_type": features.measure_type,
+        "claimed_saving_nok": features.claimed_saving_nok,
+    }
+
+
+def capture_verdict_command(args: argparse.Namespace) -> Mapping[str, Any]:
+    """``capture-verdict`` — an expert's judgement, minted into the Verdict the store holds.
+
+    The decision vocabulary is ``FeedbackContract``'s, which is what step 1 of the run path
+    already checks a supplied verdict against: a half-given or invented judgement is refused BY
+    FIELD NAME rather than completed on the expert's behalf. The emitted JSON is
+    ``verdict_to_dict`` — the same form ``write_verdict`` puts on disk — so a caller that
+    redirects stdout into the inbox folder has authored a verdict the next run will read."""
+    given = FeedbackContract(decision=args.decision, rationale=args.rationale)
+    verdict = capture_verdict(
+        _features_of(_proposal_from(args.proposal)), given.decision, given.rationale
+    )
+    return verdict_to_dict(verdict)
+
+
 def build_parser() -> argparse.ArgumentParser:
-    """The four doors, each registered by name.
+    """The doors, each registered by name.
 
     ``required=True`` on the subparsers: a toolbox invoked with no command must be a usage error,
     never a zero. Measured as a class in this repository — an exit 0 for a call that did nothing
@@ -140,11 +284,30 @@ def build_parser() -> argparse.ArgumentParser:
     slipp.add_argument("--payload", required=True, help="the producer's payload JSON")
     slipp.add_argument("--bundle-dir", required=True, help="the base the cut claims to be of")
     slipp.add_argument("--dimension", default=None, help="restrict admission to one dimension")
+
+    doem = sub.add_parser("validate-proposal", help="run the blocking deterministic gate")
+    doem.add_argument("--proposal", required=True, help="the proposal IR as JSON")
+    doem.add_argument(
+        "--cost-baseline",
+        default=None,
+        help="the project's own priced lines; without it stage 0 never runs",
+    )
+    doem.add_argument(
+        "--method-caps", default=None, help="method-cap registry JSON (measure -> fraction)"
+    )
+
+    noekkel = sub.add_parser("verdict-key", help="the learning key a verdict will arrive under")
+    noekkel.add_argument("--proposal", required=True, help="the proposal IR as JSON")
+
+    fang = sub.add_parser("capture-verdict", help="mint an expert judgement into a Verdict")
+    fang.add_argument("--proposal", required=True, help="the proposal IR as JSON")
+    fang.add_argument("--decision", required=True, help="the expert's decision")
+    fang.add_argument("--rationale", required=True, help="why — carried into the store verbatim")
     return parser
 
 
 def dispatch(args: argparse.Namespace) -> Any:
-    """Name the four handlers, one branch each — deliberately not a ``set_defaults(handler=…)``.
+    """Name each handler, one branch each — deliberately not a ``set_defaults(handler=…)``.
 
     The dispatch table argparse offers is one line shorter and hides the only thing a reader of
     this module wants to see: which command reaches which run-path step. B-gate row 1 asks the
@@ -158,6 +321,12 @@ def dispatch(args: argparse.Namespace) -> Any:
         return retrieve_chunks_command(args)
     if args.command == "prepass-admit":
         return prepass_admit_command(args)
+    if args.command == "validate-proposal":
+        return validate_proposal_command(args)
+    if args.command == "verdict-key":
+        return verdict_key_command(args)
+    if args.command == "capture-verdict":
+        return capture_verdict_command(args)
     raise RuntimeError(f"unregistered command {args.command!r}")  # pragma: no cover - argparse
 
 
@@ -181,9 +350,12 @@ def main(argv: Sequence[str] | None = None) -> int:
         )
         print()
         return REFUSED
+    code = 0
+    if isinstance(result, Refused):
+        result, code = result.payload, REFUSED
     json.dump(result, sys.stdout, ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)
     print()
-    return 0
+    return code
 
 
 if __name__ == "__main__":  # pragma: no cover - dekket av subprosess-probene

tests/test_toolbox_doors.py

@@ -25,6 +25,12 @@ import sys
 from pathlib import Path
 
 from portfolio_optimiser import datasource
+from portfolio_optimiser.verdicts import (
+    ProposalFeatures,
+    capture_verdict,
+    verdict_key,
+    verdict_to_dict,
+)
 
 _REPO = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
 _MIKRO = _REPO / "shared" / "examples" / "bygg-energi-mikro"
@@ -87,9 +93,7 @@ def test_navigate_bundle_refuses_a_directory_that_is_no_bundle_with_a_named_code
 
 
 def test_cost_baseline_from_outside_derives_exactly_what_the_priced_table_says() -> None:
-    proc = _toolbox(
+    proc = _toolbox("cost-baseline", "--bundle-dir", str(_PRISSKJEMA), "--project-id", "K2")
-        "cost-baseline", "--bundle-dir", str(_PRISSKJEMA), "--project-id", "K2"
-    )
     assert proc.returncode == 0, proc.stderr
     payload = json.loads(proc.stdout)
     assert payload["project_id"] == "K2"
@@ -124,9 +128,7 @@ def test_retrieve_chunks_from_outside_matches_the_in_process_seam_exactly() -> N
 
 
 def test_retrieve_chunks_refuses_a_top_k_that_asks_for_nothing() -> None:
-    proc = _toolbox(
+    proc = _toolbox("retrieve-chunks", "--query", "x", "--docs-dir", str(_MIKRO), "--top-k", "0")
-        "retrieve-chunks", "--query", "x", "--docs-dir", str(_MIKRO), "--top-k", "0"
-    )
     assert proc.returncode == 3, proc.stdout
     assert "top_k" in json.loads(proc.stdout)["error"]["message"]
 
@@ -212,3 +214,204 @@ def test_wrong_usage_is_exit_two_and_never_a_silent_zero() -> None:
     assert _toolbox().returncode == 2
     assert _toolbox("ingen-slik-kommando").returncode == 2
     assert _toolbox("navigate-bundle").returncode == 2
+
+
+# --- dommen: validate-proposal / verdict-key / capture-verdict ----------------------------------
+#
+# Steg 3 i B-gatens kø: de tre stegene som avgjør et forslag. Samme dør, samme regel om fasit —
+# den hentes UTENFOR døren i hver arm: basens egen innsjekkede golden-suite (validate-proposal),
+# den publike myntingsregelen `verdicts.verdict_key` (verdict-key) og `verdicts.verdict_to_dict`
+# over en dom bygget i testen (capture-verdict).
+
+_IR = _MIKRO / "validator-input.json"
+_GOLDEN = json.loads((_MIKRO / "golden.json").read_text(encoding="utf-8"))["validator"]
+
+#: Mikro-basens IR, transkribert fra `validator-input.json` — ikke lest ut av den. En arm som
+#: leste fila ville flyttet seg med den, og da måler den ikke lenger at døren gir DISSE tallene.
+_IR_CODE = "ENERGI-TOTAL-EL"
+_IR_PROJECT = "BYGG-KONTOR-NORD"
+_IR_QUANTITY = 300000.0
+_IR_UNIT_COST = 1.0
+_IR_CLAIMED = 30000.0
+
+
+def _measure() -> str:
+    """Tiltakets tekst, lest fra basen: den ER lang og står ordrett i domsnøkkelens kanoniske form,
+    så en kopi her ville vært en transkribering som kunne drive fra basen uten at noe ble rødt."""
+    return str(json.loads(_IR.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))["measure"])
+
+
+def _baseline_file(path: Path, codes: dict[str, tuple[float, float]]) -> str:
+    """En kostnadsgrunnlags-JSON på PROSJEKTETS form (`okf.load_cost_baseline_file`)."""
+    path.write_text(
+        json.dumps(
+            {
+                "project_id": _IR_PROJECT,
+                "items": {c: {"quantity": q, "unit_cost": u} for c, (q, u) in codes.items()},
+            }
+        ),
+        encoding="utf-8",
+    )
+    return str(path)
+
+
+def test_validate_proposal_from_outside_reproduces_the_bases_own_golden() -> None:
+    """Fasiten er basens INNSJEKKEDE golden-suite — produsentens frosne utfall av
+    `validate_proposal` på nøyaktig denne IR-en, med seedet Monte Carlo. Den ble skrevet før
+    verktøykassen fantes, så den kan ikke ha blitt tilpasset døren."""
+    proc = _toolbox("validate-proposal", "--proposal", str(_IR))
+    assert proc.returncode == 0, proc.stderr
+    payload = json.loads(proc.stdout)
+    assert payload["decision"] == "validated"
+    assert payload["nominal_feasible"] == _GOLDEN["nominal_feasible"]
+    assert payload["p10"] == _GOLDEN["p10"]
+    assert payload["p50"] == _GOLDEN["p50"]
+    assert payload["p90"] == _GOLDEN["p90"]
+    assert payload["claimed_saving_nok"] == _GOLDEN["claimed_saving_nok"]
+    # Uten grunnlag kjørte stadium 0 ALDRI, og døren sier det framfor å la kalleren tro at
+    # tallene ble holdt mot prosjektets egne kostnadslinjer.
+    assert payload["cost_baseline_anchored"] is False
+
+
+def test_validate_proposal_refuses_a_code_the_cost_baseline_never_priced(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
+    """Stadium 0 gjennom døren, med den ORDRETTE setningen løpet ellers skriver — det er den
+    Steg 5 mater tilbake til neste forsøk, så en dør som omskrev den ville brutt sløyfa."""
+    ukjent = _baseline_file(tmp_path / "annen.json", {"VARME-TOTAL": (1.0, 2.0)})
+    proc = _toolbox("validate-proposal", "--proposal", str(_IR), "--cost-baseline", ukjent)
+    assert proc.returncode == 3, proc.stdout
+    payload = json.loads(proc.stdout)
+    assert payload["decision"] == "rejected"
+    assert payload["reason"] == (
+        f"unknown cost code '{_IR_CODE}': not in project {_IR_PROJECT}'s cost baseline "
+        f"(1 known codes: 'VARME-TOTAL')"
+    )
+    assert payload["stage"] == "stage0-baseline"
+    assert payload["cost_baseline_anchored"] is True
+    # rc-0-kontroll: SAMME forslag mot et grunnlag som priser koden. Uten den måler armen over
+    # ingenting — den ville vært grønn mot en dør som avviste alt.
+    priset = _baseline_file(tmp_path / "priset.json", {_IR_CODE: (_IR_QUANTITY, _IR_UNIT_COST)})
+    ok = _toolbox("validate-proposal", "--proposal", str(_IR), "--cost-baseline", priset)
+    assert ok.returncode == 0, ok.stdout
+    assert json.loads(ok.stdout)["decision"] == "validated"
+    assert json.loads(ok.stdout)["cost_baseline_anchored"] is True
+
+
+def test_validate_proposal_applies_the_method_cap_through_the_same_door(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
+    """Metodetaket er DATA (F8), og døren rekker det: et strengere tak enn den generiske P90
+    avviser et forslag P90-stadiet slapp gjennom — samme dør, samme ordrette setning.
+
+    Taket regnes UAVHENGIG her: 0,05 × (300 000 × 1,0) = 15 000, transkribert fra basen."""
+    tak = tmp_path / "tak.json"
+    tak.write_text(json.dumps({_measure(): 0.05}), encoding="utf-8")
+    ventet_tak = 0.05 * _IR_QUANTITY * _IR_UNIT_COST
+    assert ventet_tak == 15000.0
+    proc = _toolbox("validate-proposal", "--proposal", str(_IR), "--method-caps", str(tak))
+    assert proc.returncode == 3, proc.stdout
+    payload = json.loads(proc.stdout)
+    assert payload["reason"] == (
+        f"claimed {_IR_CLAIMED:.0f} exceeds the {_measure()} method cap {ventet_tak:.0f} "
+        f"(stricter than the generic P90)"
+    )
+    assert payload["stage"] == "stage5-method-cap"
+    # rc-0-kontroll: et tak som IKKE er strengere enn kravet slipper samme forslag gjennom.
+    romslig = tmp_path / "romslig.json"
+    romslig.write_text(json.dumps({_measure(): 0.30}), encoding="utf-8")
+    ok = _toolbox("validate-proposal", "--proposal", str(_IR), "--method-caps", str(romslig))
+    assert ok.returncode == 0, ok.stdout
+    assert json.loads(ok.stdout)["decision"] == "validated"
+
+
+def test_verdict_key_from_outside_is_the_key_the_learning_loop_mints(tmp_path: Path) -> None:
+    """A5: én publik domsnøkkel. Fasiten er `verdicts.verdict_key` kalt på trekk bygget HER —
+    og armen skiller de to formene som ellers ser like ut: IR-en skriver `30000`, kjørestien
+    sender en pydantic-FLOAT videre, og `_mint_id` hasher den rå verdien. En dør som mintet fra
+    JSON-en slik den står ville gitt en ANNEN nøkkel enn løpet, på samme forslag."""
+    trekk = ProposalFeatures(
+        affected_codes=frozenset({_IR_CODE}),
+        measure_type=_measure(),
+        claimed_saving_nok=_IR_CLAIMED,
+        description=_measure(),
+    )
+    som_heltall = ProposalFeatures(
+        affected_codes=frozenset({_IR_CODE}),
+        measure_type=_measure(),
+        claimed_saving_nok=30000,
+        description=_measure(),
+    )
+    assert verdict_key(trekk) != verdict_key(som_heltall), "de to formene er ikke lenger ulike"
+
+    proc = _toolbox("verdict-key", "--proposal", str(_IR))
+    assert proc.returncode == 0, proc.stderr
+    payload = json.loads(proc.stdout)
+    assert payload["verdict_id"] == verdict_key(trekk)
+    assert payload["verdict_id"] != verdict_key(som_heltall)
+    assert payload["affected_codes"] == [_IR_CODE]
+    assert payload["claimed_saving_nok"] == _IR_CLAIMED
+
+    # Nøkkelen er ingen konstant: et forslag med et annet beløp nøkles annerledes.
+    annet = json.loads(_IR.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
+    annet["claimed_saving_nok"] = 12345
+    sti = tmp_path / "annet.json"
+    sti.write_text(json.dumps(annet), encoding="utf-8")
+    andre = _toolbox("verdict-key", "--proposal", str(sti))
+    assert andre.returncode == 0, andre.stderr
+    assert json.loads(andre.stdout)["verdict_id"] != payload["verdict_id"]
+
+
+def test_capture_verdict_from_outside_is_the_verdict_the_store_would_hold() -> None:
+    """Dommen fanget utenfra skal være NØYAKTIG den `capture_verdict` bygger i løpet — samme
+    felter, samme id, samme serialisering (`verdict_to_dict`, som er formen `write_verdict`
+    legger på disk)."""
+    grunn = "realiseringsgapet er dokumentert i basen; tallene holder"
+    ventet = verdict_to_dict(
+        capture_verdict(
+            ProposalFeatures(
+                affected_codes=frozenset({_IR_CODE}),
+                measure_type=_measure(),
+                claimed_saving_nok=_IR_CLAIMED,
+                description=_measure(),
+            ),
+            "approved",
+            grunn,
+        )
+    )
+    proc = _toolbox(
+        "capture-verdict",
+        "--proposal",
+        str(_IR),
+        "--decision",
+        "approved",
+        "--rationale",
+        grunn,
+    )
+    assert proc.returncode == 0, proc.stderr
+    assert json.loads(proc.stdout) == ventet
+
+
+def test_capture_verdict_refuses_a_decision_the_feedback_contract_does_not_know() -> None:
+    """Vokabularet er kontraktens (`FeedbackContract`), ikke dørens egen kopi: en halvgitt eller
+    oppfunnet dom avvises med FELTNAVNET, aldri fullført på fagpersonens vegne."""
+    proc = _toolbox(
+        "capture-verdict",
+        "--proposal",
+        str(_IR),
+        "--decision",
+        "kanskje",
+        "--rationale",
+        "x",
+    )
+    assert proc.returncode == 3, proc.stdout
+    melding = json.loads(proc.stdout)["error"]["message"]
+    assert "decision" in melding and "kanskje" in melding
+    # rc-0-kontroll: samme kall med en dom kontrakten KJENNER.
+    ok = _toolbox(
+        "capture-verdict",
+        "--proposal",
+        str(_IR),
+        "--decision",
+        "rejected",
+        "--rationale",
+        "x",
+    )
+    assert ok.returncode == 0, ok.stdout
+    assert json.loads(ok.stdout)["decision"] == "rejected"