The Step-7 trace line said "lang fil-løkke" while the verdict arrived as a
function argument (`verdict_input`) — the short, in-run capture. The long loop
was tested but never exercised by the thing on stage.
An expert now drops a real verdict FILE (`write_verdict`) into an inbox between
the runs, and Run B is given `verdict_dir=`, so `run_project` merges it into the
store before the Step-1 fold.
Not done as the plan point was worded, and the difference is load-bearing:
routing the PERSONA verdict through the inbox would have put ONE marker on two
paths — Step 7 (inbox) and Step 8 (promotion) both end in Run B's prompt, so
either could carry it alone and `test_simulation_loadbearing.py`'s promotion
assertion would have stayed green with promotion detached. A second verdict with
its own marker keeps both seams independently red-able; `simulate_learning_loop`
raises when the two markers are equal. The inbox sits beside the bundle copy,
never inside it, and the id is an explicit sentinel (a minted id would collide
with the promoted verdict's, and `VerdictStore.add` is first-write-wins).
766 -> 769 passed (773 collected). Criterion 6 re-measured: stdout byte-identical
across two runs; stderr unchanged at 6 lines. Mutations measured against the full
suite, four red + a green control: detach `verdict_dir=` · point Run B at an empty
folder while the file is still written · marker set to `realization_rate: 0.82`
(measured present in the verdict seed) · marker set to `energy performance gap`
(measured present in a navigated concept file) · benign rename of the inbox dir.
Honesty limit found while measuring: the last two mutations fell on the causality
assertion, not the Run A control — generation prompts carry the debate output, not
the bundle context. The pair holds, but each assert defends a different property.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVYDeJ9evZicgU5r3roZVW
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
1e11dcb96c