chore: cut VER-01 and CAP-02, filed on evidence that never occurred #216

Merged

john merged 1 commit from chore/cut-unevidenced-reqs into main 2026-08-18 10:29:15 +00:00

Conversation 0 Commits 1 Files changed 1 -7

john commented 2026-08-18 10:29:10 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

Both requirements were seeded into REQUIREMENTS.md at the v3.5.3 close from open diff-review findings, and both describe a sentence that could be misread rather than a run that went wrong.

The v3.5.3 close is itself the counter-evidence: the deep verifier wrote why_human on two phase-5 UAT items and the walk applied the bar and executed them rather than handing them back, and the blocking risk_surface gate re-armed exactly once against a re-read of triage-gate.md. Neither failure mode occurred or came close.

Tracked as work they would have turned "a model might misread this" into two phases of a milestone. Issues #212 and #213 are closed on the same reasoning.

If a real run ever misroutes a why_human item or arms twice, that run carries a trace and is the evidence to refile on.

v3.5.4 goes from 11 issues to 9.

Both requirements were seeded into `REQUIREMENTS.md` at the v3.5.3 close from open diff-review findings, and both describe a sentence that could be misread rather than a run that went wrong. The v3.5.3 close is itself the counter-evidence: the deep verifier wrote `why_human` on two phase-5 UAT items and the walk applied the bar and executed them rather than handing them back, and the blocking `risk_surface` gate re-armed exactly once against a re-read of `triage-gate.md`. Neither failure mode occurred or came close. Tracked as work they would have turned "a model might misread this" into two phases of a milestone. Issues #212 and #213 are closed on the same reasoning. If a real run ever misroutes a `why_human` item or arms twice, that run carries a trace and is the evidence to refile on. v3.5.4 goes from 11 issues to 9.

john added 1 commit 2026-08-18 10:29:10 +00:00

chore: cut VER-01 and CAP-02, filed on evidence that never occurred ... bc2b4ac572

Both were seeded at the v3.5.3 close from open diff-review findings, and both
describe a sentence that could be misread rather than a run that went wrong.
The v3.5.3 close is itself the counter-evidence: the deep verifier wrote
why_human on two phase-5 UAT items and the walk applied the bar and executed
them rather than handing them back, and the blocking risk_surface gate re-armed
exactly once against a re-read of triage-gate.md. Neither failure mode occurred
or came close.

Tracked as work, they would have turned 'a model might misread this' into two
phases. If a real run ever misroutes a why_human item or arms twice, that run
carries a trace and is the evidence to refile on.

Closes #212, #213.

john merged commit 6d445f3dec into main 2026-08-18 10:29:15 +00:00

john referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-08-18 10:29:16 +00:00

Merge pull request 'chore: cut VER-01 and CAP-02, filed on evidence that never occurred' (#216) from chore/cut-unevidenced-reqs into main

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

Labels

Clear labels   

already-shipped

Capability was already present in the shipped code when triaged; no work needed

  

bug

Something isn't working

  

documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  

duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  

enhancement

New feature or request

  

external-review

Raised by an outside code review; body carries the adjudication

  

good first issue

Good for newcomers

  

help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  

in progress

  

invalid

This doesn't seem right

  

needs-decision

Deliberate keep/cut call before any code

  

proposal

Make the case for a change before writing the code

  

question

Further information is requested

  

security

Hardening: a control that fails silently or an exposure surface

  

wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels

already-shipped

bug

documentation

duplicate

enhancement

external-review

good first issue

help wanted

in progress

invalid

needs-decision

proposal

question

security

wontfix

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone

Projects

Clear projects

No items

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Subscribe

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: crenshawdev/cadence-archived#216

No description provided.