Back to the port, and the finding came from reading data rather than a tool. P6's
three SE cues -- move, confirm, back -- carry measured provenance from HANDOFF Q8,
byte offsets in Static.slb and careful why text. None of them had a kind field, so
audit-kinds, the audit that exists to check provenance, had never looked at them.
Counting the corpus: 55 why fields with no kind against 16 with one. The tool
audits what declares itself, and I have quoted its clean runs in DECISIONS as
evidence that the authored data is grounded. That was a statement about 16 of 71.
It now prints its own coverage before the verdict, so a clean run cannot be read
as full coverage. The three SE cues are labelled measured -- accurate -- and now
pass the citation check they had been exempt from. 19 of 71.
Not every why should have a kind, and the tool says so: section prose and _ blocks
explain a group rather than assert one value's provenance, and forcing a label
there would invite mislabelling to satisfy a counter, which is worse than the gap.
So it reports the ratio rather than demanding it be 1.
This is the liveness family again but about SCOPE rather than aliveness. Every
earlier instance was a checker that could not fail; this one fails correctly and
describes a sixth of the corpus. 'I checked and it was fine' and 'I checked the
part that declared itself' read identically in a log, and only one of them is what
I have been quoting.
Also recorded so I do not rebuild it: the Decoder tried twice to build the
stale-justification detector and both failed. Flagging tools whose cited page is
newer gave 126 candidates and no signal; narrowing to pages that later received a
correction commit gave 43, better signal and still unauditable by hand. They
sampled 3 before publishing and all three were false positives. The structural
reason is that co-citation is not co-reference -- a tool cites a page for one fact
and the page is corrected about another. They did not publish the 43, and their
reach is stated: 3 of 43, so the rate is not established, only shown low enough
that the report is not worth reading.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
f415b0cd51