forked from mosaicstack/stack
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5
1e7a0701fd
rev-974 blocked #1027 a second time, and the defect was in this file, not the code. D-18's AC2 restatement omitted the accidental/independent scope D-19 made mandatory, and D-18 asserted the tampered-manifest control turns integrity 'from a claim into a property'. It does not and cannot — that sentence predated D-19 and was never revised when D-19 landed. rev-974 disproved it by experiment: a same-UID consistent manifest+marker rewrite passed preflight. Two banked findings firing on the orchestrator at once: the integrity-claim corollary (I wrote a claim in the voice of a property, in the document defining the rule against it), and D-14 propagation — I carried D-19's consequence forward into the charter and the delivery conditions but never back into the finding it superseded. Backwards propagation is the same defect as forwards and I did not audit for it. Corrected in place with the original wording quoted and the disproof recorded, not silently rewritten. RM-02 fifth clause: documentation asserting a security or integrity property is itself a claim requiring a negative control observed red. Prose is not exempt from the mission's evidentiary standard, and governing prose least of all. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>