Their rule, from replacing a stale status with an unchecked one in the edit
criticising unchecked status: a correction is a new claim and needs the same check
as the claim it replaces.
I made that shape of edit last iteration. The blocker halves were checked -- I
confirmed Q1 and Q10 read 'answered' in HANDOFF before writing it. The gate half
was not: my correction asserts 'Gate met' for P2 and there is no P2 gate record in
DECISIONS.md at all. Written from confidence.
Resolved by measuring rather than withdrawing. ptbtn01 declares y 142 -> 162 across
t=28..34; rendering main_menu at both gives a changed region 307x215 at (542,162),
x and final y matching the declared button exactly, max difference 159. The port
does slide the buttons in, so P2's gate is met -- now on evidence.
Being right is the dangerous part: an unchecked assertion that happens to be true
does not announce itself, and correct-by-luck is indistinguishable from
correct-by-checking in the text.
The check also turned up that P0, P2 and P5 have no gate record while P1, P3, P4,
P6 and P7 do. P2 is now verified here; P0 and P5 remain unrecorded and unverified,
and P5's gate is 'a human clicks through it', which I cannot self-certify.
Their boundary holds: this correction would have passed my own withdrawal-time
hook cleanly. Neither mechanism tests whether a correction is true.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
fbba0a0175