Four review findings, all of the class this branch is about - prose asserting
what a mechanism does, with nothing binding it to the mechanism.
The record's `mechanics:` said a GREEN claim over an already-red proof "would
otherwise be satisfied by the redness it is supposed to rule out". Inverted:
`verify_claim`'s GREEN branch REFUSES any non-zero exit, so redness refutes a
GREEN claim and can never satisfy one - which is what
test_MUTATION_disarming_the_GREEN_EXIT_STATUS_gate_accepts_a_proof_that_WENT_RED
asserts. The hazard the control removes is the same one it removes for the
rows, and it runs in both directions: an already-red proof satisfies a RED
claim with redness its mutation did not cause, and refuses a GREEN one for a
reason unrelated to its mutation. Both the record and the fixture comment now
say that, and both say what the control CANNOT do - its assertions are over the
aggregate of every proof ref, so a single ref collecting nothing is invisible to
it and is caught per-claim by the vacuity gate instead.
The manifest's `why` had widened a scoped sentence into "THE OTHER GATES EACH
CARRY THEIR OWN PROOF" and then enumerated them, which made the enumeration a
completeness claim it could not meet: the identical-replacement refusal carried
no proof at all. The review measured that at 8adf21eff - `if mutated ==
original:` disarmed, whole file 49 passed 1 skipped. That gate is the one a red
proof cannot be told apart from: the mutant is byte-identical, so the proof runs
against the original tree and an already-red one reddens exactly like a
detection. Disarmed, the harness certifies it as "the named test went red under
the declared mutation, with the declared diagnostic" - witnessed here on the
real library, restored after. So the measurement above no longer holds, by
construction: the gate now has a disarm proof, and the sentence says explicitly
that naming the gates is not a claim the list is closed.
Proposal 3's rejection quoted "16 lines" with no predicate - the defect the
record's own body names three paragraphs later, where the population scan is
pinned verbatim for exactly that reason. The figure is not reproducible from the
text. Replaced by a pinned `git grep` over the same corpus at the same sha
(`32 files, 58 lines`), with what reading all 58 shows: they are rationale, the
class the rule carves out, and the few real state anchors among them are not
separable by pattern, because the difference is whether the sentence explains or
asserts.
refs #881
Decisions-Edit: yes
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015QqCpYFsKgnAnx6jVwrKiV
timothyandClaude Fable 5.1
99966f8bd7