The SC asks two things of an effort: high run: that it discovered at least
one dimension AND that the dimension list in the output brief is a TRUE
SUPERSET of the interview-derived ones. activationCheck computed
dimensions - dimensions_baseline >= 1 and returned ok on that alone. A
count delta says nothing about membership: a run that dropped two
interview dimensions and appended three discovered ones is +1 and passed
the check while violating the second half outright. Supersetness was
asserted only by Phase 4.5's prose contract that discovery appends -
nothing read it.
The stats record cannot carry the dimension names that would show it
directly: names are free prose, and lib/exporters/field-allowlist.mjs
denies prose by omission (question, project_dir, brief_path are already
excluded for that reason). So the run attests membership with
dimensions_baseline_preserved, a boolean set in a new Phase 4.5 step 5,
and the gate refuses to call activation OK without it. An ABSENT
attestation fails rather than falling back to the old count-only rule -
otherwise legacy rows would keep passing on the defect.
Producer side wired end to end: the record format, the measurement-fields
prose (five fields -> six), the exporter allowlist, the jsonl-schemas
fixture row, and the --activation-check comment in
docs/storm-measurement.md.
Review finding d2786604458207a5a73478cdcb6a54bbdb92141d (MINOR).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LuGhWAbWyRFBFeemfhxoVv
Two defects in the adoption gate, both in the direction that flatters
adoption.
1. A non-numeric empty_turns counted as an eligible run.
Number('many') is NaN, and the test was `Number.isFinite(empty) &&
empty > 0`, so NaN fell through to the eligible branch. Measured
before: 0 -> eligible, 2 -> excluded, undefined -> eligible, null ->
eligible, 'many' -> ELIGIBLE, NaN -> ELIGIBLE. The exclusion is one of
the two properties docs/storm-measurement.md names as carrying this
gate's honesty, and the run whose bookkeeping broke is the run whose
numbers deserve the least trust. Now excluded. Absent and null stay
eligible via `?? 0` - a field never written is a genuine zero on a run
where the loop never armed.
2. The printed threshold line said "adopt >= 30.0% on BOTH - decline <
15.0% on BOTH" while decideVerdict evaluates OR on both sides. S82
restored the pre-registered OR rule in the logic (c37bf50d) and left
this line describing the stricter AND gate, one line above the verdict
that OR produced. The summary is the only form of the rule most readers
ever see, so it now states EITHER on both sides and that adopt wins
ties. Found while fixing (1); not a review finding.
A test pins the printed line against the string "on BOTH" so the two
cannot drift apart again silently.
Review finding 24a76c21ffc694cd782cd449212c9502d31aeda6 (MINOR).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LuGhWAbWyRFBFeemfhxoVv
The brief pre-registers "median forbedring >= 30 % pa (a) eller (b) ->
adopt. < 15 % -> decline." decideVerdict() required BOTH metrics to clear
the adopt bar and BOTH to fall under the decline bar, a rule introduced at
execution time (plan Step 11 restated the brief's wording unchanged).
The divergence is behavioural, not cosmetic: sources +90% / dimensions +10%
is adopt under the brief and was inconclusive in code; sources +2% /
dimensions +20% is decline under the brief and was inconclusive in code.
Adopt is evaluated before decline, so the OR bars do not conflict where they
overlap. docs/storm-measurement.md §2 and the test pins follow the same rule.
The stricter AND rule may well be the better decision procedure — but
changing it after the fact is exactly what pre-registration exists to
prevent. Review finding c37bf50d.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011vPSXe88qp5aqWUqbDNWoF
