Admission extracted everything before the first parenthesis, so the operation for
`const preTax = eval(req.body.preTax)` was `const preTax = eval`. No real
declaration can enumerate every assignment a codebase might write, so admission
would have rejected genuine findings on operation_semantics_mismatch. The M1b
demonstration only passed because its declaration listed the assignment spellings.
The symbol is now the trailing qualified callee. Receiver spelling stays part of
it, so `$wpdb->prepare` and `prepare` remain different operations and a declaration
cannot widen from one to the other. A spelling that is not a qualified name, such
as a dynamic `handlers[name](x)`, yields the statement text, matches no declaration
and stays ineligible exactly as before.
Controls cover the assigned call, the receiver distinction, the dynamic spelling,
and that a declaration for a different operation still does not cover it. The
recorded-veto report reads the same helper instead of repeating the extraction.
1,403 tests passed, nine skipped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EmM1j46qgKMh3zqD1QMwEo
Rerunning the three NodeGoat revisions after tasks 10.1-10.3 shows the recorded
view now classifies the case: the vulnerable revision reaches new with
operation_absent_from_comparable_base, and the unchanged revision reaches
unchanged with its base location resolved to the same lines. Both previously
stopped at operation_correspondence_unresolved and witness_identity_unresolved.
The rerun also caught a defect in the repair itself: the new novelty reason was
missing from the admission allowlist, so admission rejected the candidate as
change_unsupported. Fixed with a control.
The production path is still blocked by the last two vetoes, and the measurement
shows neither can be scoped or relaxed as the plan described. A taint answer
reports traced flows, so an absent row means either that the operation does not
exist in the base or that no traced flow reached it.
dynamic_external_or_depth_context_unresolved exists to stop the second being read
as the first, and removing it would turn a wrong absence into a wrong new
finding. It is also computed over every in-scope method, so on any real Express
application it is always true and can never be discharged, which is why the tool
reports nothing on real projects.
The resolution is new evidence rather than a relaxed rule: export the operations
the query actually enumerated, separately from the flows it traced, so absence is
established from the inventory while a traced-flow claim still requires complete
reachability. That is now task 10.4, ahead of the two vetoes it unblocks, and it
adds no detector, alias resolver or second source IR.
1,348 tests passed, nine skipped. No capability enabled; rollout stays NO-GO.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EmM1j46qgKMh3zqD1QMwEo
