forked from mosaicstack/stack
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5
8fe14d8e1a
The wording ruling holds: the required sentence is verbatim in the baseline and its control, and every remaining use of "protected" refers to RM-60's external boundary rather than the local baseline. The history claim reads "structurally incapable of asserting history provenance". I verified the negative control by making the overclaim myself: clean exits 0, and injecting "protected, independently anchored" into the baseline purpose exits 84 with INVENTORY_CLAIM_OVERSTATED. D-48 was an overstated boundary claim that three of us approved; that exact failure mode is now caught mechanically rather than by attention. Review dispatched with N2 as the sharpest check: the overclaim control is itself PR-controlled, so can it be weakened or reworded so an overstatement passes? This PR's history is that every fix relocates the defect one level down, so the reviewer is asked to assume it did again. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>