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>
C1. Round 4 produced 13 declarations over six runs and NOT ONE named a fasit concept.
The distinct documents opened before each were 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,5,5,6,13,13: seven
declared the base's FIRST requirement after opening exactly ONE document.
The order offered two rules and asked which discriminates. Replayed against the real
listings: "the declared document must have come back from a read_dir filtered on a word
from the approach's label" refuses 13 of 13 -- including Soraasen's 12.11, the closest
any run came -- because ZERO of the 13 were reached through a filtered listing at all.
A gate that refuses every measured case, right and wrong alike, cannot discriminate.
"fewer than k distinct documents opened" at k=3 refuses 8 of 13 and keeps the five that
navigated. k=3, 4 and 5 refuse the SAME eight -- the distribution has a gap between 2
and 5 -- so the threshold is not on a cliff, and 3 is the lowest of that plateau.
DISTINCT paths, not calls, and capped by the base's own size so a small base stays
declarable.
C2. Over the same traces 18 of 143 path-bearing calls named a path the base does not
hold, ELEVEN of them one run walking R761/4-3, 4.3, 4-2, 4-1, 4-0, 4-5, 4-6 while the
real names are R761/4, R761/41, R761/42. The refusal already named the nearest listable
ancestor; now it also names up to five of that rung's own subdirectories, ranked by
longest common prefix with the segment that failed. ONE copy shared by both refusal
sites, built from context_files through in_dimension, so every name handed back resolves
and the verdict layer can never be advertised in an apology. MEASURED after: 16 of 18.
Load-bearing MEASURED, four mutations all red against the WHOLE suite, green control
1863/5, golden byte-unchanged: C3(i) the declaration gate detached (2 red) . C3(ii) the
neighbour list empty (6) . C3(iii) built from files (1, the verdict arm alone) . C3(iv)
count CALLS instead of distinct documents (1, the repetition arm alone).
Three existing arms REWRITTEN, not weakened: all three read one document and declared,
which is the measured failure class exactly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three seams, one commit: A, B and C touch the same four modules (run.py carries
the debate task, the grounding composition and the announcement; okf.py carries
one reference-number vocabulary read by both A and B), so splitting them into
three commits would have meant hunk-level staging of entangled files. Stated
rather than silently restructured.
A — the declaration answers with the DOCUMENT's own words. Measured: 13
declarations over round 3 and P17b, not one naming a fasit concept, while the
tool answered {"declared": true, ...} by echoing the caller's own arguments. It
now returns the document's title and req_number, read off Bundle.context_files
(so the type: verdict layer can never be named back), plus the sentence saying
what the declaration binds. A path the base carries as no concept answers with
empty strings rather than refusing. The commission's success_criteria now reach
the DEBATE task through mandate.criteria_block, the one renderer, empty when
there are none — which is what keeps every un-commissioned prompt, and the
golden, byte-identical.
B — a clause number is not a price. THE ORDER'S OWN RULE WAS FELLED BY
MEASUREMENT: it asks to refuse a code that IS declared req_number/prosessnr,
and neither of its two known positives is. n500 declares seksjon 10.4.1..10.4.4
but never the bare 10.4; r761 declares 2727 prosessnr and 2753 seksjon, none of
them 1.10.4, which occurs once, as prose ("iht. vegnormal N200 kap. 1.10.4").
The COMPLEMENT fires on both and closes the hole _ground_against_input already
admits in writing -- "it fails OPEN on a coincidental match". Unanchored run +
requirement-shaped code + the base declares a vocabulary + the code is not in
it -> refused, naming the denominator. All five of kontrakt-sorasen's real
process codes ARE declared and pass, which is what keeps the one context set
built on real codes measurable. Replayed over all 24 codes of round 3 + P17b:
exactly the two known positives flip validated -> rejected, 22 unchanged.
C — a parse failure no longer burns the round ledger blind. _fetch_parsed takes
a BUILDER instead of a finished message list, so the retry carries the parse
reason; measured, kontrakt-sorasen-04 spent 11 of 12 rounds re-asking the same
question. And announced_subject names the routed bases instead of saying "the
portfolio" for a two-base commission.
Suite 1807/5 (from 1781, +26, 0 removed), golden demo-transcript.stdout
BYTE-UNCHANGED (shasum -a 1 of the CONTENT = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f),
ruff and mypy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
