Not review findings — a systematic pass over every factual claim the record makes,
checking each against the file it describes rather than against my memory of it.
1. The record said defects 1 and 3 were "a `perl` wrapper inside an `if`, which is
not a file at all". Defect 1 was a `[ -x "$cmd" ]` test, not the wrapper, and
both live in `scripts/check-local-lsp.sh` — which IS a file. The point survives
and is now stated correctly: that file is outside the population because no
workflow or hook invokes it, and `mcp_smoke.py` because it is reached only
through it (scope limit item 6).
2. "drives SIX of its refusal paths" — the file has six test functions, of which
one is the positive control. It drives FIVE refusals plus the success path. A
count taken from the wrong denominator, which is the coverage-overclaim shape
round 2 had just corrected elsewhere in the same paragraph.
3. `docs/README.md` called this "the four rules every guard must satisfy". It is
not a fourth guard rule — its whole content is that the obligation extends
BEYOND guards, to the verification code doing the checking. Restored to three
guard rules plus this one as an extension, which is also what makes the
task-signal row useful to someone whose file holds no inventory row.
Refs: #796
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
timothyandClaude Opus 5
ea0a9fd2b4