Two defects the mutation battery and the paid round found, both measured before
being touched.
(1) code_forms described the WRONG candidate. Every per-approach artefact copied
the run's stamp and overrode only validator_decision, so an artefact about
approach 2 reported approach 1's codes. Measured in BOTH round 3 and round 4 --
and stress.py, which reads this field before re-deriving, then produced an EMPTY
prose_codes for every approach but the first, which is what round 3's table was
built on. The field's own comment already says it is stamped "off the proposal
being stamped"; run-level was the drift, not the intent. Model, citations and
token usage stay the run's, because they are the run's.
(2) The C2 announcement seam had no witness. Mutation C-iii reverted the call
site to `args.project_id or "the portfolio"` and the WHOLE suite stayed green
(1808/5): all three arms drove announced_subject directly. The missing arm drives
main() on a free dry run and reads the announcement off STDOUT, where an operator
reads it, and is red against exactly that mutation.
Sixteen mutations, ALL red against the whole suite. Green control 1809/5 (from
1781, +28, 0 removed), golden demo-transcript.stdout BYTE-UNCHANGED
(shasum -a 1 of the CONTENT = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f).
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>
