The demo shows "download and run". Implying you can point this at your own sources and build a
knowledge base claims three things the code does not carry -- and A5 (the code may not claim more
than it does) binds the presenter too, not just the source.
Measured first, and one measurement changed the plan: the guard is NOT v0.2 alpha. That figure came
from our own 2026-07-16 inclusion plan, which is a premise rather than a fact. It is v0.3.4, seven
published tags, `dependencies = []` -- stdlib only. Our okf pin (v0.3.2) declares no dependencies
either, so the guard is not coupled to it, and the 0.3.5-vs-0.4.0 release argument concerns the
release AFTER v0.3.4. Adoption moved from risky to tractable on that one reading.
The three claims, made precise: the demo bundle was hand-curated (honesty), the ingest path writes
unscanned (buildable), and the generic bundle factory does not exist (deferred at O1, not buildable
in four days). Two close with code, one with a sentence.
The two tracks are separated on a measured fact: `simulation.py` does not import `ingest`, so Door A
work cannot disturb what Wednesday freezes. Criterion 5 is the one that proves it -- the walkthrough
must stay byte-identical.
Four decisions are named as decisions rather than settled silently: which policy preset, fail-closed
versus flag-and-write, where the guard's report lands in provenance, and keeping `--strict`
meaningful across a seam that ships no py.typed. The honesty paragraph is written in BOTH variants
up front, so Wednesday is an observation and not a judgement call on stage.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
295e9665fe