Stress round 6 validated three falsification arms, and every validated
approach rested only on run-level declarations nobody can attribute to one
approach. declare_requirement now takes a required approach_id (a mandate
id or own-proposal; an unknown id is refused naming the valid ones), and a
ValidatedProposal whose approach has neither a mandate requirement nor a
declaration under its own id becomes validator.Unsupported - a Rejection
subclass carrying the validator's own ruling, reported as `unsupported` in
coverage, the outcome artefact, the settlement and the judge, and never
counted or summed. The rule is active whenever the debate held the
declaration tool, the micro base included; the road and pre-pass paths are
untouched. Declaration quality is not judged, so the rule can be satisfied
by declaring any document the run read.
The v1 gate's row 6 probes pass; its artefact half reads IKKE MÅLT because
stress round 6 predates approach-addressed declarations, and IKKE MÅLT is
never green - it fails the exit code.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
MAJOR-3/S7a-3 gjorde utforskningen billig og lot pipelinen staa. Maalt paa K2
(630 konsepter, S7bs eget instrument, kjent-positiv-kontrollen reprodusert
eksakt FOER bruk): okf.bundle_context er 648 962 o200k-tokens og rir i TRE
kopier = 1 947 342 = 99,1 % av en kjoerings prompt-tokens.
Et premiss i maaledokumentet ble presisert foerst: de tre kopiene er tre
DEBATT-turer (proposer x2, checker x1), mens genererings-prompten er 156
tokens, fordi gen_context = debate_output or context. Det avgjorde formen -
generering trengte ingen egen soem, for aa binde `context` binder
siste-utvei-fallbacken ved konstruksjon.
run_project sender naa en PEKER (fast tekst + erklaert bundle_id + antall
konseptdokumenter i scope + stigen, O(1) i korpuset) og gir debatten de SAMME
fire verktoeyene utforskningen bruker - explore.navigator_tools gjenbrukt,
aldri en andre kopi av policyen.
Etter: 753 tokens like-for-like (samme manus, samme fire prompter, -99,96 %)
og 8 942 med en debatt som faktisk gaar stigen (-99,5 %), mot operatoerens
terskel 195 000 = 4,6 % av taket. Validert besparelse og validatorens dom er
UENDRET (850 000 NOK av 3 852 500, 2 av 5 felt paa stage 4 og 5, samme
dom-noekkel), og utforskningens 18 355 er uendret til tokenet.
§4.1a maatte flytte, ikke forsvinne: dimensjonsfilteret bodde i renderingen og
bor naa i VERKTOEYENE, paa begge trinn - en listing som skjuler et fremmed
dokument mens read_file serverer det paa sti er et filter i navnet alene.
okf.in_dimension er eneste predikat.
Sporet er kaller-eid (ExplorationToolRecorder -> RunResult.debate_tool_calls ->
{run_id}-debate.json fra en finally) og skrives ogsaa TOMT: en debatt som
navigerer ingenting ER S2c-regresjonen, saa den maa kunne leses.
Load-bearing MAALT: aatte mutasjoner roede mot HELE suiten, groenn kontroll
1306/5 (fra 1295/5), golden demo-transcript.stdout BYTE-UENDRET
(shasum -a 1 av innholdet = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f).
M7 falsifiserte seg selv, ikke gaten - staar som maalt.
Maaling: docs/2026-09-04-s2c-debatt-k2.md
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A run commissioned to evaluate three approaches wrote ONE proposal artefact, so
only the approach it selected could ever receive a verdict. The other two were
evaluated, reported in the settlement, and then taught the learning loop nothing.
The defect class is a key collapse, and it had two halves — fixing either alone
leaves it intact:
* the WRITER wrote one pair per run, so the non-selected approaches never existed
on disk;
* the READER (hitl._read_outbox_proposals) joins proposal to outcome on the
run_id FIELD read from file CONTENT, never the filename. Three files sharing
one run_id collapse onto one dict key, last write wins — so widening only the
filename would have produced three artefacts and still one pending row. This is
the S3.2 collision class: two rows under one key silently become one.
Artefacts are now keyed {run_id}-{approach_id}-*.json AND carry approach_id in the
payload; the join key is (run_id, approach_id). Two properties make them genuinely
judgeable rather than merely present:
* verdict_id is minted per approach (verdicts.verdict_key, the S3.2 content hash)
— reusing the run's single id would let one delivered verdict clear all three
from the queue;
* provenance.validator_decision follows ITS OWN approach — the run's stamp would
report a rejected candidate as validated, and nothing downstream could correct it.
verdicts.verdict_key is public so a run can stamp the key a verdict WILL arrive
under without capturing a decision nobody has made; it delegates to _mint_id
rather than restating the hash (the (p) rule: one keying rule, one copy).
The per-approach set REPLACES the run-level pair rather than joining it — the
selected approach is already among them, and writing both would count it twice in
hitl pending. The selected one carries the run's final outcome, so the outbox can
never disagree with the RunResult; the others carry the validator's verdict, the
only falsifier that ran on them.
mandate.py is deliberately untouched: hanging a ValidatedProposal off a coverage
row would drag validator — and pulp — into a module kept to pydantic+stdlib for
D7 portability, so _evaluate_mandate returns the evaluated outcomes alongside.
Ran it, not just tested it: a real CLI run wrote six artefacts and hitl pending
listed three rows. It also showed the honest edge — three approaches that produce
an identical candidate share one content-hash key, so one verdict settles all
three. That is correct (they were one candidate), and it is now documented.
Load-bearing MEASURED (tests/test_a5_per_approach_artifacts_loadbearing.py) against
the whole 750-test suite, five mutations all red: detach the per-approach writer ·
drop approach_id from the join key · reuse the run's verdict id · reuse the run's
provenance stamp · widen the filename but not the payload. Control: on a full
detach exactly the 5 new tests fail and 745 pre-existing ones stay green — the
no-mandate path is inert, and writes neither the filename segment nor the field.
Docs: bestille-en-kjoring.md (what the commissioner gets) + ekspert-svar.md (what
the expert's queue looks like, and that "rejected" is the validator's verdict on
the numbers, never a professional judgement of the idea).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VtRd8y1PDPGwkrRXFhubqr
