forked from mosaicstack/stack
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5
dde38717dd
Registered at e910a45a before any reviewer read the diff. Verified first, so the set does not re-spend:
the narrowing sentence is verbatim in both the baseline and its control; the overclaim control fires
(clean exit 0, injected "protected, independently anchored" exit 84 INVENTORY_CLAIM_OVERSTATED); CI
2201 is 10/10 with the machine check bound and clean. D-48's failure mode is now mechanically caught.
N1 and N2 are the sharp checks. N1: the control only inspects the files it inspects, so is the claim
honest everywhere else — docs, comments, observations, CLI output? N2: the overclaim control is itself
PR-controlled, so can it be weakened or reworded so an overstatement passes? If it can, D-52 is re-armed
one level down, which is the recursion this PR has produced at every round. N3 asks whether it detects
semantic overclaim or only literal strings.
H2 and H3 re-check the two traps I found in the code by reading it, because they are the way (d) turns
back into a green: emitting the unverifiable state as an observation exits 0, and coverageBoundary
exclusion is declared rather than enforced. H4 requires the corrected residual, not the D-48 wording.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>