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
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
7d5e4fcbcc