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
Two vetoes M1a recorded were global where the evidence is local.
Comparison required every selected base question to complete, so one unsupported
family anywhere prevented an otherwise complete target comparison. Completeness
is now demanded over the required scope: the counterpart question plus the
dependencies the change context actually recorded for it. Every other gap stays
in aggregate coverage and is still reported, never discharged. An incomplete
counterpart, an incomplete recorded dependency, an unknown-ownership boundary
and a truncated base scan all still yield unknown.
Correspondence ambiguity was recorded file-wide and inherited by every question,
so repeated unchanged lines in one file invalidated every question in the
repository and blocked the whole transaction comparison. It is now decided per
operation by the correspondence classifier: an operation needing an ambiguous
anchor stays uncomparable, while a uniquely mapped or newly introduced operation
in the same file is unaffected. The mapping is still withheld and still reported.
On the NodeGoat case the ambiguity is on the target's own file, so file-level
scoping would not have been enough; only per-operation resolution is.
1,347 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
M1a measured that a newly introduced operation sits on a changed line, has no
base line anchor, and therefore stayed unclassified even with every completeness
veto lifted. Establish absence over the complete counterpart answer instead of
over a line anchor.
Correspondence now reports why a head operation does not map: `changed_line`
inside a recorded head edit, `ambiguous` where several base lines could
correspond, or `unmapped` where no anchor exists. Only the first supports
reasoning about an introduced operation, and only when the base counterpart
answer is complete and contains no operation with that spelling.
Movement is matched on the operation spelling alone, so a benign identifier
rename that changes only the source text reads as movement rather than a new
flow. The existing rename control caught that; the key was too brittle before.
One prior control is superseded and updated with its reason: a new operation on
a changed line in a comparable existing file is now new rather than unknown.
Movement, ambiguity, unmapped operations, discharged or unentailed claims and an
incomplete or failed base all remain unknown.
1,337 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
