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>
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
20cdc22803