coder-mos2 built blocker 2's "protected/base artifact" fix, ran independent code AND security review on
its own fix, and returned HIGH CWE-353 against its own work: the baseline is not protected because
verifier, manifest, baseline, tests and lifecycle code are all PR-controlled, so rewriting them
consistently self-certifies. It stopped rather than invent a fourth local anchor.
Both of us authored the error in the same turn. I dispatched blocker 2 as "must come from a
protected/base artifact"; Mos ruled blockers 2+3 fixable in-PR; and the same brief told the seat that
blocker 1 had no local fix because PR code executes before the gate. My own pre-registered P2 had
already named it — the seven required gate IDs are an anchor list, and if the author can edit it that
is D-45 one level in. I registered the check, rev-974 confirmed it as a blocker, and I dispatched a
remediation reproducing it one level down.
That is the strongest evidence the principle is real: it defeats the people who wrote it, every time,
until the anchor is external. Knowing the rule does not protect you from it.
Ruled (b) honest narrowing, and the sibling distinction is what makes it correct rather than a
climbdown. Blocker 1's local check can be vacuously passed — seam=HEAD certifies over nothing — so the
claim is REMOVED. Blocker 2's baseline genuinely detects accidental drift and fails only against an
adversary rewriting baseline, manifest and verifier consistently, so the claim is NARROWED and the
check kept. Accidental drift is most real-world drift.
The wording is the whole ruling, because this is D-48 territory and neither seat may repeat it: no
"protected" or "independently anchored" over a same-checkout baseline, positive claim and adversarial
gap in the same breath, plus a negative control that goes RED if the check ever claims protection it
does not have.
Increment trajectory surfaced to Jason: two RM-02 anchors now require RM-60 and each thins the
(d)-strict increment. If a third needs the same boundary the increment may thin past worth.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
