docs(major2): invariantraden - eksperten svarer paa forslaget paa bordet, og svaret brukes

CLAUDE.md: en invariantrad etter verdict-gate-raden, i husets skjelett - nevneren
(grep "prior_" finner EN soem, maskinens egen), D6 og hvorfor alternativet ble
forkastet, den ledger-bevisste attempts_remaining, honoured = "hentet faktisk",
kanalvalget begrunnet av tre maalinger, den kaller-eide sinken, skriv-iff-reviewer,
de fem nektene ved navn og den hostede pre-whitelist-sjekken. Load-bearing-blokka
lister M1-M40 med roedtall, M29 staar som et FUNN (uvitnet baerer), og de to
armene som var groenne av feil grunn i steg 1-8 er skrevet ned som repoets
vakuoes-gate-klasse, sekstende og syttende gang. Aerlighets-grensene til slutt.

README.md: --proposal-review i enkeltprosjekt-flagglista og en prosablokk etter
--plan-review/--checkpoint-dir-paret, i samme form - hva operatoeren ser og
skriver, at en revise KJOEPER ett forsoek til under de eksisterende takene, at
approve ikke er en ekspertdom, og alle fem nektene navngitt (--checkpoint-dir-en
peker paa --resume, doera som VIRKER). Kundevendt vokabular.

Ny arm: test_the_readme_block_names_every_flag_the_cli_refuses_the_door_with,
Fase-3-formen (raa tekst, uttrukket blokk, kontroll paa at uttrekkeren finner noe
som finnes). Intet M-nummer - lista lukket ved M40 - saa den ble drevet ROED TO
ganger: mot README-en foer blokka fantes, og med blokka paa plass men
--checkpoint-dir omskrevet til aa beskrive nekten uten aa navngi flagget.

1364 passed / 5 skipped. Golden demo-transcript.stdout BYTE-UENDRET
(shasum -a 1 av INNHOLDET = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f). Node-ID-ene
er et strengt supersett: 1319 -> 1369, 0 fjernet. mypy og ruff rene.

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

tests/test_proposal_review_loop_loadbearing.py

@@ -1501,3 +1501,55 @@ def test_run_portfolio_takes_no_reviewer() -> None:
     is the ``--portfolio`` partition's own reason — so a later "symmetry" edit must be a RED test,
     not a silent widening."""
     assert "proposal_reviewer" not in inspect.signature(run.run_portfolio).parameters
+
+
+def test_the_readme_block_names_every_flag_the_cli_refuses_the_door_with() -> None:
+    """The README-claim arm, in the Fase-3 form (``test_public_surface_claims_loadbearing``):
+    a claim the PUBLISHED surface makes about itself, read as RAW TEXT, because prose is the one
+    thing no behavioural test can see.
+
+    The door has five partner refusals. A README block that documents the door but omits one of
+    them sends a stranger into a refusal the page said nothing about — the same drift the wheel
+    filename gate exists for, and the reason the handover gate matches names rather than prose.
+
+    The block is EXTRACTED (the ``--proposal-review`` prose block, from its bold heading to the
+    next bold heading) rather than substring-matched over the whole file, because ``--portfolio``,
+    ``--report`` and ``--checkpoint-dir`` all appear elsewhere in the README for their own reasons
+    — a whole-file check would be green on exactly the prose it is supposed to protect.
+
+    This arm carries no M-number: the M-list closed at M40. It was driven RED TWICE, because
+    "the block is missing" and "the block is incomplete" are different failures and only the
+    second is what this gate is for. (i) Written and measured against the README as it stood
+    BEFORE the block was added — extraction found nothing, and ``assert block`` failed. (ii) With
+    the block in place, the ``--checkpoint-dir`` sentence was rewritten to describe the refusal
+    without NAMING the flag; the partner loop went red on its own. The control that the extractor
+    is not silently finding nothing is the ``--plan-review`` block at the end, which has existed
+    since F4.
+    """
+    readme = (_REPO / "README.md").read_text(encoding="utf-8")
+    block = _readme_block(readme, "Answering the proposal review (`--proposal-review`)")
+    assert block, "the README must carry a --proposal-review prose block"
+    for partner in (
+        "--portfolio",
+        "--report",
+        "--live-dry-run",
+        "--proposals-from-mandate",
+        "--checkpoint-dir",
+    ):
+        assert partner in block, f"the README block never names the refusal with {partner}"
+    assert "--resume" in block, "the --checkpoint-dir refusal must name the door that DOES work"
+    assert "OKF bundle" not in block, "customer-facing prose says knowledge base, never OKF bundle"
+
+    # CONTROL: the extractor finds a block that has existed since F4, so an empty result above is
+    # a missing block and not a broken extractor.
+    plan_block = _readme_block(readme, "Answering the plan review (`--plan-review`)")
+    assert plan_block and "enable_plan_review" in plan_block
+
+
+def _readme_block(readme: str, heading: str) -> str:
+    marker = f"**{heading}.**"
+    start = readme.find(marker)
+    if start == -1:
+        return ""
+    nxt = readme.find("\n  **", start + len(marker))
+    return readme[start : nxt if nxt != -1 else len(readme)]