Ran the humanizer rules over 79 prose files in the active specs (brief,
design, requirements, research and narrative docs). Removed em dashes,
significance inflation, forced rule-of-three, bold-label list items and
filler. Skipped tasks.md checklists and the retired specs (harnessx-*,
openrouter-sast-harness, unseen-repo-evaluation).
Every number, path, command, hash and identifier was preserved: checked
each file against HEAD for drift in numbers, inline code and code fences,
zero drift across all 79 files.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>
Legacy inventory 2, the six STATUS NOTE items (the archive README row landed with the R2 commit).
ai-service-plane: 11 of 11 tasks checked, spec.json phase set to implementation-complete as 5b96199
did for four other specs. contributor-scan: dated note in requirements.md -- paused since 2026-09-23,
27 of 51 tasks, v1.2.0-alpha.1 NO-GO, remaining tasks wait on pre-push M2/M3. finding-feedback-loop:
dated note -- dormant, design unapproved since 2026-09-09, depends on the paused spec. The steering
overview's spec table carries the same three states, its leftover 2026-09-09 module-count line is
removed and the collected-test count is the measured 2,023. docs/memory-and-detection.md names the
archive path of model_sinks, the one stale script name left in docs after 067adb9.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EmM1j46qgKMh3zqD1QMwEo
**Amendments approved and folded into the numbered requirements** rather
than left as a proposal appended to the file:
- Req 5.5 — a report proportionate to the evidence behind a finding. A
rule whose only evidence is a text match is summarised past a stated
number of sites; a finding a proposer reasoned about keeps its detail
whatever its rung; nothing leaves findings.json, which is the record a
baseline is compared against.
- Req 5.6 — a family that cannot decide a class states the limit, and no
scan presents an absence of findings as evidence of absence.
- Req 4.6 — at least one pinned checkout carries a vulnerability a family
can decide in principle, so a scan producing nothing is distinguishable
from an engine that cannot see.
Each carries the evidence that produced it, and the amendment record keeps
what group 2 confirmed rather than changed: Req 8's overfitting warning
earned its place twice, Req 3.3's honesty counters made an invisible
failure visible, and Req 11.2's gates held through all nine defect fixes.
Req 5.5 is half implemented. Task 2.11 made pattern matches proportionate;
task 2.17 now carries the model layer's own suspicion band, which is 38 of
vampi's 60 findings and is an enumerated candidate the graph could NOT
decide with a judge's opinion attached -- a pattern match with an opinion,
not a reasoned claim, and weaker evidence than the obligations checker's
structural output.
**finding-feedback-loop requirements generated**, seven of them: a
dismissal file the developer owns and the tool never writes, rejecting one
without a reason because a suppression list without reasons is a graveyard
nobody can audit; a counter-example ledger whose entries are runnable
regression cases, grouped by shared cause so a recurring bug is visible as
one; a model that proposes a cause into a review queue and decides nothing,
validated by reverting the three known matcher fixes and measuring what it
recovers; dismissals plus a recipe's known vulnerabilities as one split
evaluation set with the holdout unread and asserted; evolution scoped to
the judge and residual questions with the fact tables off limits to any
automated means; an adoption that reports what it traded and reverts itself
when net-negative; and the loop inheriting the corpus blind spot, so its
evidence base is repositories and it states how few it has.
Phase: requirements, generated, not approved.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
