check-claims guards the refuted register, the thing both agents lean on when they
say a dead claim is not being re-asserted, and it had no control machinery at all.
Every 'planted a revival, it failed, removed it, it passed' in DECISIONS was done
by hand, once, and never again -- in a repository where two of my own tools carry
the line 'a control that does not execute is not a control'. I wrote that about
somebody else's tool.
The hole the Decoder found in their equivalent was here too. The scan loop runs
once per register row; with no rows it runs zero times, fail stays 0, and the
script printed 'every refuted claim appears only inside its correction' and exited
0. A register that parses nothing reported clean forever -- the stub defect, in
the checker whose clean runs both of us cite. It now exits 2 with 'the harness is
broken, not the corpus'.
--control executes four cases, each driving this script as a subprocess and
reading its real exit code: clean 0, unmarked revival 1, marked revival 0 with no
false positive, empty register 2. Asserting in check-all.
Two things taken from their build of the same thing rather than invented: the
self-test drives the real machinery and reads its actual exit code -- my first
--selftest reasoned about what the harness would do, which is the cheaper mistake
and the one I made -- and the three-way exit convention, which is what lets 'the
corpus is dirty' and 'the checker is broken' be different answers instead of both
being nonzero.
The plant lands in a real scanned directory, because a control that runs somewhere
the tool does not look proves nothing about the tool. Verified two-directionally:
pointing the plant at an unscanned path makes the control report itself broken.
Still without harness self-tests and filed rather than left looking finished:
audit-kinds and verify-transcode-fidelity.
Every asserting check passes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
4fff1beecd