fix(review): an anonymous invalid payload is unattributable, not a reviewer named "unnamed reviewer"

Follow-up defect in the reviewer accounting added by e2aec01, found by review
and confirmed by probe before fixing.

validateFindings only WARNS on a missing `reviewer` field, so a payload can
fail schema while carrying no name. ingest then records `reviewer: null`, and
runContract turned that null into the literal reviewer name "unnamed reviewer".

MEASURED before the fix:
  runContract([{findings:[{file:'x.mjs',line:1,rule_key:'NOPE',severity:'MAJOR'}]}],
              {expectedReviewers:['code-correctness-reviewer']})
  -> missing_reviewers = ["unnamed reviewer", "code-correctness-reviewer"]
One failure, two entries, one of them an agent nobody launched. The
`reported.delete(s.reviewer)` line was also inert for that case, since a null
name was never in the set to begin with.

Fix: skipped payloads are split by whether they carry a name. Named ones go to
missing_reviewers as before; anonymous ones increment the new
`unattributable_payloads` count, which forbids ALLOW on its own - so stripping
a reviewer name from a payload cannot restore ALLOW, and the floor does not
depend on the caller passing expectedReviewers. `allow_blocked_by` reports the
two facts separately: `missing-reviewer:<name>` and `unattributable-payload (n)`.

The old behaviour never produced a false ALLOW - it failed in the safe
direction - but it named a reviewer that did not exist, which is the kind of
output an operator would chase.

Iron Law: two failing tests first (double entry; anonymous-payload-alone must
forbid ALLOW), then the fix.

Also verified in this pass, by temporarily adding a fake reason to
UNVERIFIED_REASONS: the prose-vocabulary pin does go red when a reason is
declared in the lib but missing from agents/review-coordinator.md. A pin that
cannot fail is not a pin.

Suite 1034 (1032/0/2) -> 1036 (1034/0/2), 0 failures.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -21,12 +21,16 @@ The format is based on [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.1.0/).
   with `allow_blocked_by` naming why). The rule never *raises* a verdict: the
   severity catalogue and the BLOCKER/MAJOR thresholds are untouched. New
   exports: `classifySuppression`, `REFUTING_REASONS`, `UNVERIFIED_REASONS`;
-  `runContract` gains `unverified`, `missing_reviewers` and `allow_blocked_by`
+  `runContract` gains `unverified`, `missing_reviewers`,
-  (`suppressed` stays the union, so existing consumers keep their meaning).
+  `unattributable_payloads` and `allow_blocked_by` (`suppressed` stays the
+  union, so existing consumers keep their meaning). A payload that fails schema
+  without carrying a `reviewer` name is counted as unattributable rather than
+  reported as a reviewer called "unnamed reviewer" — naming one would invent an
+  agent nobody launched and double-count with `expectedReviewers`.
   Mirrored in `agents/review-coordinator.md` (Pass 2/3 fate columns, the new
   §*Suppression is two-valued*, Pass 4 threshold table) and
   `commands/trekreview.md` (Phase 5 reviewer accounting → STOP; Phase 6).
-  Driven test-first: 9 new tests in `tests/lib/coordinator-contract.test.mjs`,
+  Driven test-first: 11 new tests in `tests/lib/coordinator-contract.test.mjs`,
   incl. a known-positive control proving `ALLOW` is still reachable.
 
 ### Docs

agents/review-coordinator.md

@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ The LAST fenced block in the file is a `json` block:
 {
   "verdict": "BLOCK | WARN | ALLOW",
   "counts": { "BLOCKER": N, "MAJOR": N, "MINOR": N, "SUGGESTION": N },
-  "allow_blocked_by": ["unverified:succinctness:title (1)", "missing-reviewer:brief-conformance-reviewer"],
+  "allow_blocked_by": ["unverified:succinctness:title (1)", "missing-reviewer:brief-conformance-reviewer", "unattributable-payload (1)"],
   "findings": [
     {
       "id": "<40-char-hex>",

lib/review/coordinator-contract.mjs

@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ export function reasonablenessFilter(findings) {
  * severity is reviewer-asserted and was never substantiated.
  *
  * @param {object[]} findings
- * @param {{ unverified?: object[], missingReviewers?: string[] }} [options]
+ * @param {{ unverified?: object[], missingReviewers?: string[], unattributablePayloads?: number }} [options]
  * @returns {{ verdict: 'BLOCK'|'WARN'|'ALLOW', counts: Record<string, number>, allow_blocked_by: string[] }}
  */
 export function computeVerdict(findings, options = {}) {
@@ -278,6 +278,7 @@ export function computeVerdict(findings, options = {}) {
 
   const unverified = options.unverified ?? [];
   const missingReviewers = options.missingReviewers ?? [];
+  const unattributablePayloads = options.unattributablePayloads ?? 0;
   const allow_blocked_by = [];
   const byReason = new Map();
   for (const f of unverified) {
@@ -286,6 +287,7 @@ export function computeVerdict(findings, options = {}) {
   }
   for (const [reason, n] of byReason) allow_blocked_by.push(`unverified:${reason} (${n})`);
   for (const r of missingReviewers) allow_blocked_by.push(`missing-reviewer:${r}`);
+  if (unattributablePayloads > 0) allow_blocked_by.push(`unattributable-payload (${unattributablePayloads})`);
 
   let verdict;
   if (counts.BLOCKER >= 1) verdict = 'BLOCK';
@@ -299,11 +301,12 @@ export function computeVerdict(findings, options = {}) {
  * Run the full deterministic contract: ingest → Pass 1 → Pass 2 → Pass 3 → Pass 4.
  *
  * `options.expectedReviewers` names the reviewers this review was supposed to
- * hear from. A reviewer that is absent from the payloads, or whose payload
+ * hear from. A reviewer that is absent from the payloads, or whose named
- * failed schema validation and was thrown away at ingest, lands in
+ * payload failed schema validation and was thrown away at ingest, lands in
- * `missing_reviewers` and forbids ALLOW: an unread reviewer is an absent one,
+ * `missing_reviewers`; a payload that failed schema WITHOUT a reviewer name is
- * and zero findings from a silent reviewer must not read like zero findings
+ * counted in `unattributable_payloads` instead. Either forbids ALLOW: an
- * from a clean diff.
+ * unread reviewer is an absent one, and zero findings from a silent reviewer
+ * must not read like zero findings from a clean diff.
  *
  * `suppressed` stays the UNION of `dropped` (refuted) and `unverified` so
  * existing consumers keep their meaning; `unverified` is the subset that
@@ -311,7 +314,7 @@ export function computeVerdict(findings, options = {}) {
  *
  * @param {Array<{reviewer?: string, findings: object[]}>} reviewerPayloads
  * @param {{ expectedReviewers?: string[] }} [options]
- * @returns {{ verdict: string, counts: Record<string, number>, findings: object[], suppressed: object[], unverified: object[], skipped: object[], missing_reviewers: string[], allow_blocked_by: string[] }}
+ * @returns {{ verdict: string, counts: Record<string, number>, findings: object[], suppressed: object[], unverified: object[], skipped: object[], missing_reviewers: string[], unattributable_payloads: number, allow_blocked_by: string[] }}
  */
 export function runContract(reviewerPayloads, options = {}) {
   const { findings: ingested, skipped } = ingest(reviewerPayloads);
@@ -320,16 +323,24 @@ export function runContract(reviewerPayloads, options = {}) {
   const reasoned = reasonablenessFilter(judged.kept);
   const unverified = [...judged.unverified, ...reasoned.unverified];
 
+  // A reviewer counts as REPORTED only when a payload carrying its name
+  // validated. `validateFindings` merely warns on a missing `reviewer`, so a
+  // payload can fail schema anonymously: that is an unattributable payload, not
+  // a reviewer called "unnamed reviewer". Naming one would invent an agent
+  // nobody launched, and would double-count with expectedReviewers when the two
+  // are in fact the same failure.
+  const skippedNames = new Set();
+  let unattributable_payloads = 0;
+  for (const s of skipped) {
+    if (typeof s.reviewer === 'string' && s.reviewer.length > 0) skippedNames.add(s.reviewer);
+    else unattributable_payloads += 1;
+  }
   const reported = new Set();
   for (const payload of reviewerPayloads) {
-    if (typeof payload?.reviewer === 'string' && payload.reviewer.length > 0) reported.add(payload.reviewer);
+    const name = payload?.reviewer;
-  }
+    if (typeof name === 'string' && name.length > 0 && !skippedNames.has(name)) reported.add(name);
-  for (const s of skipped) reported.delete(s.reviewer);
-  const missing_reviewers = [];
-  for (const s of skipped) {
-    const name = s.reviewer ?? 'unnamed reviewer';
-    if (!missing_reviewers.includes(name)) missing_reviewers.push(name);
   }
+  const missing_reviewers = [...skippedNames];
   for (const r of options.expectedReviewers ?? []) {
     if (!reported.has(r) && !missing_reviewers.includes(r)) missing_reviewers.push(r);
   }
@@ -337,6 +348,7 @@ export function runContract(reviewerPayloads, options = {}) {
   const { verdict, counts, allow_blocked_by } = computeVerdict(reasoned.kept, {
     unverified,
     missingReviewers: missing_reviewers,
+    unattributablePayloads: unattributable_payloads,
   });
   return {
     verdict,
@@ -346,6 +358,7 @@ export function runContract(reviewerPayloads, options = {}) {
     unverified,
     skipped,
     missing_reviewers,
+    unattributable_payloads,
     allow_blocked_by,
   };
 }

tests/lib/coordinator-contract.test.mjs

@@ -308,3 +308,28 @@ test('suppression vocabulary — the two sets are disjoint and every reason is d
       `reason "${reason}" is declared in the lib but never documented in agents/review-coordinator.md`);
   }
 });
+
+test('runContract — an anonymous invalid payload is unattributable, not a reviewer named "unnamed reviewer"', () => {
+  // `validateFindings` only WARNS on a missing `reviewer`, so a payload can
+  // fail schema while carrying no name. Reporting it as a reviewer name
+  // invents an agent nobody launched, and double-counts with expectedReviewers
+  // when they are in fact the same failure.
+  const result = runContract(
+    [{ findings: [{ file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'NOPE', severity: 'MAJOR' }] }],
+    { expectedReviewers: ['code-correctness-reviewer'] },
+  );
+  assert.deepEqual(result.missing_reviewers, ['code-correctness-reviewer'],
+    'missing_reviewers carries real names only');
+  assert.equal(result.unattributable_payloads, 1);
+  assert.ok(result.allow_blocked_by.some((x) => x.startsWith('unattributable-payload')));
+  assert.ok(!result.allow_blocked_by.some((x) => x.includes('unnamed reviewer')));
+});
+
+test('runContract — an anonymous invalid payload forbids ALLOW on its own, with no expectedReviewers', () => {
+  // The fail-closed floor must not depend on the caller passing an expected
+  // set: without this, dropping the name from a payload would restore ALLOW.
+  const result = runContract([{ findings: [{ file: 'x.mjs', line: 1, rule_key: 'NOPE', severity: 'MAJOR' }] }]);
+  assert.deepEqual(result.missing_reviewers, []);
+  assert.equal(result.unattributable_payloads, 1);
+  assert.notEqual(result.verdict, 'ALLOW');
+});