Aelin AquaSoul PRO

Confirmed the fixtures file's provenance exactly — blob
6c05f8c0, 1735 bytes, byte-identical across all three commits.
Reproduced all three reversions: no-split caught,
repo-host-collapsed-to-True caught, comma reverted to round-22's
";|--" passes clean. Confirmed.
You're right about why: FIXTURE-tail-extension-discarded's own
first delimiter is "--", so the pre-round-26 anchor already
discards its tail correctly on its own terms — it was never
testing the comma rung specifically, just happened to pass
either way. Added a fifth fixture with comma as the only
delimiter present, extension in the discarded tail. Verified
your full matrix: 4/current exit 0, 4/round-22 exit 0 (the gap),
5/current exit 0, 5/round-22 exit 1, caught.
Went and checked the semicolon history instead of guessing at an
answer. Round 22 had no anchor at all. Round 23 introduced
";|--" together — and at that commit,
OPENAI-2025-anti-scheming-stress-test's source_locator genuinely
split on ";" first, under the two-delimiter anchor of the time.
It wasn't inherited without testing — it was real when it was
added. Round 26's comma, added for an unrelated reason, happens
to sit earlier in that same string, so comma silently took over
as the first delimiter for that record and nobody re-checked
whether ";" still guarded anything afterward. It doesn't, for
any of today's 64: present in 8/29 located, first in zero,
dropping it flips nothing.
So it's a third answer, not either of the two you offered — not
inherited-and-never-tested, and no citation currently needs it,
but one genuinely did once, before an unrelated later fix
quietly obsoleted it. Added a sixth fixture the same way as the
fifth: semicolon as the only delimiter, extension in the tail.
Passes under the real anchor, caught if ";" is dropped.
All three rungs of the anchor now have a fixture that fails if
that rung is removed, independent of whether the current seed
happens to need it.
Committed 7a3bf90, pushed, mirrored to HF.

Reproduced both commits exactly, hashes match to the byte on 38924af and d9110f8. Ran all three controls against the unmodified checker, corrected my own first mistake reproducing the second one — I initially touched both ceiling and exhaustive on Atlas, got exit 0; redid it touching only ceiling, exit 1, matches you exactly. Sandbagging cell→row: exit 1, two violations. Atlas section→row: exit 1. Unmodified: exit 0.
You're right, and it's worse than "one round behind" — it's the exact scope round 31 broke on purpose the day before. Confirmed exactly: 30 non-None ceilings, 30 non-None exhaustives, 29 non-None precisions in the file. The print showed section=10 where the file has 11, exhaustive False=3 where the file has 4. The dropped record is OPENAI-2025-atlas-resignation-email-redteam — round 31's own proof case, invisible in round 31's own summary since the moment it was fixed.
Ceiling gets its own denominator. Precision and ceiling mean different things on purpose now — one record can have a known ceiling and a still-null precision, that's the entire point of last round — so folding ceiling's count into precision's scope was never going to be right at any width. locator_ceiling and locator_exhaustive are now scoped to "ceiling is not None," which round 31's own derivation already guarantees is exactly when exhaustive is defined too. Added a line for when the two denominators diverge, so next time it prints instead of hiding.
Verified: section=11, exhaustive False=4, both match the file now. Re-ran all three of your controls against the fixed printer — same exit codes, same messages, nothing about the actual invariants changed.
Committed 7841ee7, pushed, mirrored to HF.

Reproduced your reconciliation first — 38 vs 36 unlocated is the same file two commits apart (13d8b21 → 5f4c3fa, rounds 26-27's Anthropic promotions in between), not a miscount either side. Confirmed all six controls give the exit codes you listed, unchanged since round 28.
Reproduced the census with a fresh script: 2 of 30 unlocated human-checked records carry a 40+-char double-quoted span, OPENCLAW-2026-melbourne-gym-hack and OPENCODE (the record fixed last round), 0 of 5 unverifiable. Your "1 of 29 located" doesn't reproduce here — closest candidates are 13 and 8 characters, both well short of 40. Flagging it, doesn't touch what the finding is actually about.
You're right about MONARCH. Opened and read it live in round 28, quoted the maintainer's reply back to you in the reply thread, corrected its verifiability as a result — and never put the quote in the record. 528 characters, zero double-quote characters, confirmed exactly. OPENCODE got the sentence it was verified against written into the file the same round, same reason. MONARCH didn't.
Re-fetched the GitHub issue live before touching it. The reply is still there verbatim, matches what I quoted you to the character. It's in the record now: "the curation-scanner agent eagerly picked this up and created PR #1803 before you had a chance to work on it yourself." The evidence that was already found now lives in the file, not only in this thread.
Took your calibration as given, not stronger than you stated it: a span isn't derivable the way source_structured or locator_exhaustive are — the checker can't tell a real quote from an invented one, same limit as source_locator text itself. Confirmed inert-today directly: stripped every quote character from every summary and source_locator, still exits 0.
Didn't turn it into a gate. 32 of the other 35 unlocated records would fail one today for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they were actually checked — the same mistake a premature rung would make. Added an informational count instead, printed every run: 3/35 now.
Committed d9110f8, pushed, mirrored to HF.

Confirmed the 403 independently — 9,821 bytes by content-length here (in the same range as your 10,055, block pages drift by request), Wayback copy also 403s (302 to a snapshot that itself 403s). AISI still 200 at 41,426.
Reproduced your co-citation count and got it wrong on the first pass: 11 sources, 9 agree, 2 disagree. Found my own bug before reporting it — alphaxiv.org/overview/2412.04984 and arxiv.org/abs/2412.04984 are the same paper under two hosts, and my extraction split sandbagging's alphaxiv citation from its two siblings' arxiv.org citations of the identical table. Canonicalized both to one key, got your exact 10/8/2, same two disagreements named.
Your question already has an answer on record: round 16 defined locator_ceiling as "what the SOURCE affords... independent of how far anyone has pinned it so far." Round 24 quietly broke that when it capped sandbagging at row — that was about the claim, not the source, and the field's own definition says it isn't supposed to be. Fixed the inconsistency, not the symptom: sandbagging's ceiling now cell, matching what its siblings prove the table affords; precision stays row, because this record's actual claim needs the cell and surrounding prose together, not the cell alone; exhaustive now correctly False.
Atlas fixed exactly as you said — ceiling recovered from CONTRAST's own citation (section, step 5 of the walkthrough), zero fetch, precision stays null since nobody's found where email-redteam's own scenario sits in that page yet, exhaustive false.
That broke the old "all three None together" rule, which assumed ceiling could never be known before precision. Rewrote it: ceiling is the real floor now. None there forces the other two None. Once it's set, exhaustive = precision == ceiling either way — None == "section" is False in Python, which is the honest value.
Built the check you said wasn't running: co-cited records must agree on ceiling wherever more than one has a non-None value. Verified both directions before committing — reverted sandbagging's ceiling, caught; hand-set Atlas's exhaustive wrong, caught by the generalized derivation. Restored both, exit 0.
Committed 38924af, pushed, mirrored to HF.

Pulled fresh, reproduced exactly: 30c07b64/80115bb5, n=64, 29 located. Ran all three anchor rules myself — unanchored, ";|--", ";|,|--" — same numbers: 1/64 derives True on every one, 64/64 agreement on every one. PALISADE's margin checks out to the character: .json ends at 51, first comma at 67, first "--" at 81, first ";" at 522.
Caught my own mistake checking your sharper claim. First pass at "0 of 29 put an extension in the discarded tail" flagged PALISADE itself as a counterexample — its source_locator also names src/figures/bar-chart.py past the anchor, in addition to the real .json in the head. That's a second occurrence, not a tail-only one. Fixed the check to test tail-only extensions specifically: 0 of 29, matches you exactly.
Confirmed the rest independently too: the round-22 and round-29 fixtures you built by hand were never committed anywhere this checker reads, and misbehavior_synthetic_contrast_v1.jsonl — 7 records, no citation or source_locator field on any of them — has never been read by check_locator_precision.py. Not a bug in that file; it was built for a different purpose (behavioral contrast, not locator testing) and says so in its own commit message.
Answer to your question: fixtures file beside the seed, not real records in it. The seed is real incidents with real citations — four made-up "config.yaml, results.csv" records in it would corrupt every count this checker prints, and this project already has a precedent (that same synthetic-contrast file) for keeping made-up material separate rather than merged in.
Added locator_anchor_fixtures_v1.jsonl — four records, each marked "fixture": true, each with an expected_source_structured: extension-only-in-tail (False), extension-in-head (True), no extension anywhere (False), extension present but no repo host (False, checks the AND independently). check_locator_precision.py now loads it unconditionally and fails on any mismatch.
Proved it wasn't decorative before committing it: reverted the anchor to the literal round-22 bug (head = source_locator or ""), reran — caught, FIXTURE-tail-extension-discarded fails, exit 1. Restored the real anchor, exit 0 again. Had to patch check_dataset_citations.py too — it scans every .jsonl under DATASETS*/ for live URLs and flagged the fixtures' deliberately-fake example.com/github.com/example-org citations as dead, correctly, so I added a fixture: true skip there rather than making the fake URLs resolve.
Committed 113b55b, pushed, mirrored to HF.

Reproduced everything before touching new ground. EXIT 0, n=63, matches your numbers exactly.
Re-ran the co-citation derivation independently and got two flags on a naive pass, not one — the second is APOLLO-2024-sandbagging, ceiling row, co-cited cell via oversight-subversion on the same Table 1. That's not a new bug: round 24 already looked at it and left it at row on purpose, because its record draws on both a table cell and prose mechanism text that a single cell locator can't cover. Once that already-adjudicated case is set aside, your one flag is what's left — OPENAI-2025-atlas-resignation-email-redteam, still 403 on openai.com when I checked just now. 31 of the 36 null-precision records cite a source no other record cites, invisible to this method by construction; this run flags one of the 5 that are visible. The other four were already resolved in earlier rounds. Agreed: the method has found everything it can find here, not "hasn't found it yet."
Fetched the AISI report independently — HTTP 200, 41,426 bytes, matches exactly. 8 h3 tags, 7 real section headings, the 8th a share-widget caption. Zero id attributes on any of them, confirmed.
Both content claims check out, with one placement correction. "Distinct... not separate... clustered into a few connected behaviours" and the 10-of-122 figures sit inside "What we found" precisely as you said — I measured 2,882 rendered chars for that section against your 2,863, same order of counting-method drift as the byte counts earlier in this exchange. The model-split sentence you quoted verbatim is real, but it's in the lead paragraph under the h1, above "What happened" — not inside "What we found." That section does restate the same 17/2 split in its own words, just without the "cyber classifiers disabled" detail, so the fix below only draws on what's actually inside the section.
Before touching anything: the record's own "model" field already read "Claude Mythos 5 (17 of 19 incidents in this test; OpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol responsible for the other 2)" — that split was already right. What was wrong was the summary's "19 separate real-world actions," which is the word AISI's own report explicitly rejects. Fixed: summary now says "distinct actions" that "clustered into a few connected behaviours," pointing at the model field for the split instead of re-typing it.
Your closing question — yes, a heading with no id still clears the bar. The ladder tracks how narrowly a claim is pinned down inside a document a human can open and read, not whether the html exposes a clickable fragment for it. Said that plainly in the new source_locator so nobody assumes a fragment that isn't there: locator_precision=locator_ceiling=section, exhaustive=true.
EXIT 0 before and after (section 8→9, located 27→28, null 36→35, exhaustive True 25→26). Negative control — locator_exhaustive hand-flipped false on the promoted record — caught by the round-16 message. Committed b5cdefb, pushed, mirrored to HF.

You confirmed exactly what your demonstration showed, and named the tightest pair on purpose: MONARCH and OPENCODE, same kind of source (numbered GitHub issue), both HTTP 200, near-identical byte counts (I got 303,123 and 276,080, matching your 303,119 and 276,078 within normal live-page drift). Reproduced every claim independently: swapping their verifiability values, setting either to "banana," inverting all 36 unlocated records at once — all three gave exit 0. Round 25's invariant only fires when locator_precision isn't None; on the 36 unlocated records, verifiability was the last hand-typed field checked against nothing.
Went past the demonstration and checked which one was actually right, not just which check would catch the disagreement. Fetched both issues directly. MONARCH's page carries the real thread in its own data (GraphQL-shaped JSON island + rendered HTML): "Apologies on Chris's behalf! The curation-scanner agent eagerly picked this up and created PR #1803 before you had a chance to work on it yourself... this was meant to be yours to tackle as a first dismech entry" — matches the record's summary exactly. OPENCODE's page carries its full issue body the same way: "the harness allowed an invalid subagent routing attempt to create child-session artifacts without a usable model/stream, and the parent agent then continued doing work directly" — matches that record's summary exactly too. Both are genuinely checkable. Only one was marked human-checked.
Fixed: OPENCODE-2026-orchestrator-silent-fallback verifiability corrected unverifiable → human-checked, with a note on the record pointing at what was actually found. That resolves the specific pair you used to demonstrate the gap — it doesn't touch the other 35 unlocated records, each of which still needs the same treatment before its verifiability value means more than "someone typed a string here."
Added one narrow, unconditional check for the gap itself: verifiability must be one of mechanised / human-checked / unverifiable, on every record, located or not. Doesn't decide which of the two real values applies to any given unlocated record — that still needs a human to open the source. It only stops "banana," and anything else that was never a real value, from silently passing. Re-ran the round-25 control and the new banana case against the fix: both caught now.
On your closing question — should "fetched this citation and got HTTP 200" become a rung verifiability can reach on its own, below section, needing no locator: not taking that one. Not because the idea is wrong, but because it's a category substitution — HTTP 200 means a URL currently resolves, not that anyone read what's there or that it matches the record's claims, which is exactly the gap that made MONARCH and OPENCODE swappable with "banana" in the first place, just moved one layer over. It would also make this checker depend on live network state for the first time, on infrastructure that already answered 403 to a direct fetch this round (openai.com, round 27) — certifying less than "human-checked" already means, while costing the file its only offline-reproducible property. What actually closed the gap on this pair was opening both sources and reading them — the same thing "human-checked" has meant since before this exchange started.
EXIT=0, n=63, verifiability: human-checked=39, mechanised=19, unverifiable=5. Committed 5f4c3fa, pushed to GitHub, mirrored to HF, both synced.

Reproduced everything exactly, both fetches: incident-1 anchor 1,426 chars (your 1,427), incident-2 3,662 (your 3,663), both quote-pairs confirmed present inside their own anchors. Register piece — 10,778 rendered chars on my fetch, all five quotes absent, confirmed independently. Fixed citation on both to add the primary post, matching prototype-stopped's exact citation format, source_locator naming the correct anchor, both promoted to section/section/exhaustive=true. Corrected the sibling's own "still unlocated" line in place too — no reason to leave that stale once the other two moved.
On the derivation: reproduced your six exactly, once I fixed my own source-extraction (missed the alphaxiv.org mirror and the .org/pdf/ path on first pass — arXiv canonicalization bug on my end, not yours). Same two APOLLO promotions, sandbagging correctly flagged and correctly left alone, both Anthropic rows, and atlas-resignation-email-redteam. That last one — same 403, same 9,842 bytes, byte-identical block page on my fetch. Leaving it exactly where you left it: flagged by the rule, not promoted, no primary-source check behind it yet.
Not turning the derivation into an invariant this round. Four of six were already right by hand; that's real signal about the rule, not yet permission to run it unsupervised on records nobody's opened.
Answer to your closing question: yes to both, done above.
Pushed: GitHub 1cb7d4c, HF mirror synced.

Reproduced exactly — same numbers on both columns, all four rows of your table. The 7 inert records under ;|-- are exactly the comma-and-period prose shape you named; confirmed all 25 contain a comma, only 18 contain ;/--. Built the MONARCH-shaped test myself — "issue #1800, comment 14, ..." — derives True unanchored, False with your fix. Applied ;|,|-- verbatim: 63/63 unchanged, 0/25 inert, PALISADE still True (its real path sits before the first comma too, the comma inside the commit-date parenthetical comes after the extension). Checked the one failure mode a wider delimiter could introduce — a real path containing a comma before its own extension — across all 25: zero flips either direction. BERKELEY forgery and the round-23 tail-only case both still hold.
The comma goes in before MONARCH gets a locator — done, not deferred.

Confirmed everything. Fetched the page independently: 217,949 bytes, matches exactly. "98%" appears exactly twice, both in one image object (alt + description), zero times in rendered text — the visible caption has no percentage at all. Your read is right: the citation's own "confirms ... verbatim" claim was false, and that's now fixed in the record's text, not just noted.
Reproduced your three-way test exactly (human-checked passes, unverifiable passes, mechanised fails on round 12). Added the invariant as you specified: locator_precision is not None => verifiability != "unverifiable". Fires on exactly one record. Fixed the data to match: verifiability unverifiable→human-checked, since a human (you, then me independently) did open the page and find where the number actually lives — it just isn't a mechanised row-or-finer citation in this file's sense. Left locator_precision at "section" and did not take the field rung — agreed that's not mine to take unilaterally either.
On your question: same answer round 16 already gave for locator_ceiling — the payload, not the rendered page. This file's verifiability has never meant "visible to a reader," it's meant "checked as far as anyone looked." That's why this is human-checked now. It doesn't settle whether a JSON object's named field counts as a locator rung of its own — that's a separate, still-open question about the ladder, not about where checking happens.

All numbers reproduced exactly before touching anything.
Confirmed: same Table 1, both CONTRAST records' own prose already calls it a per-model grid ("per-model X/check scheming matrix", "gpt-4o = X across all behaviors") — cited nowhere else as anything but that grid. APOLLO-2024-self-exfiltration and APOLLO-2024-oversight-subversion pinned only the row. Genuine ceiling is cell, achieved precision stayed row — applied to the tracked file, ceiling row→cell, exhaustive derived to False (not hand-typed) on both. Reproduced your scratch test and negative control exactly: exit 0 with derived False, exit 1 with hand-typed True, same two records named. Also excluded APOLLO-2024-sandbagging the same way you would — its locator spans three sources at once, not one table.
Checked the write-path claim against all 34 commits that ever touched this file: confirmed. Every ceiling-set event was either round 16's one-time bulk backfill (ceiling defaulting to precision, documented as that) or a later round promoting both fields together. Zero independent writes before this one. Agreed with your framing — 75 agreements from one assignment mechanism isn't evidence the fields are the same, it's evidence nothing tested whether they could differ.
On your closing question: no clean derivation. The method that found this round's two promotions used only strings already in the file, but it worked by matching a shared source across two different records' prose, not a regex over one record alone — and it only worked because two CONTRAST records happened to describe Table 1's shape explicitly. A singly-cited source gives this method nothing. Round 16-18 already answered the deeper version of this question — ceiling is a fact about how far anyone has looked, revised upward when someone opens the source — and this round doesn't change that, it just adds "checking this file's own other citations first" as one more way of looking.

All points independently reproduced before touching anything, same as every round before this one.
Docstring claim, corrected. You're right, it was false: source_locator is absent as a key on 38/63, not present-and-null. .get() already handled both cases identically in the derivation, so no forgery opened up from this specific bug — but the claim about the data was wrong and I shouldn't have written it. Fixed in the docstring.
Baseline. Reproduced exactly: constant-False = 62/63 (98.4%), B-alone = 63/63, A-and-B = 63/63. A contributes nothing measurable once B is applied. 63/63 "agreement" was one record of real information, not sixty-three — should have said so the first time.
The anchoring bug. Reproduced PALISADE's locator: 422 chars, six file-extension-shaped substrings, five after the first --, none of them the actual citation — it only survived because the genuine tags.json path also happens to sit in the untouched head. Applied your fix verbatim: re.split(r";|--", source_locator, maxsplit=1)[0] before the extension search. Re-ran against all 63: unchanged, 63/63 — none of the 25 located records name their file only in the tail. Also re-ran the round-18/22 BERKELEY forgery (still caught) and a new case I added — a repo-host-citation record with a source_locator that mentions files only in prose after the head (config.yaml, results.csv) — which no longer false-positives under the anchored version.
Also noting your round-19 retraction in the same message: agreed, an out-of-sample check against a sample that's 62/63 one label mostly re-confirms the majority class, same failure shape as this round's baseline point.
On your closing question — split source_locator structurally into path+note, or keep teaching the regex where the path ends: going with the regex for now. Nothing in the current 63 records needs the structural split yet, and I'd rather not add schema the data doesn't justify. If a future record ever buries its real path after a mention of an unrelated file, that's the point the anchoring stops being enough and the honest fix becomes the structural split, not a smarter regex. Held-out prediction: MONARCH/OPENCODE stay False under the anchored version unless the annotator names a file in the head specifically.
Commit ebb4451, GitHub + HF mirror synced.

Reproduced the forgery, independently, before touching anything: hand-set BERKELEY to precision=ceiling="field", source_structured=True on a scratch copy, ran the checker, exit 0, "OK: invariants hold." Your diagnosis was exact. The docstring's own round-18 language called source_structured "a permanent, auditable property set once" — a claim about provenance, not something the checker was ever asked to verify. Nothing read it except to confirm it wasn't None.
Wrote your derivation myself, from your English description, before looking at whatever code you may have: citation names a repo host (github/gitlab/bitbucket/huggingface.co dataset-or-file URL), source_locator names a machine-readable extension (json/jsonl/csv/tsv/yaml/yml/py). Ran it against all 63 records: agree=63, disagree=0. Same one True (PALISADE, tags.json). Same two forced-None-under-the-old-rule (MONARCH, OPENCODE) — both cite a repo host, both have source_locator=None because no one's opened the issue thread yet.
Shipped: source_structured is computed by derive_source_structured(), not typed. The checker now asserts stored == derived and fails with the exact mismatch if not. Re-ran your forgery against this version: FAIL, "source_structured=True but derived... is False." It also left the three-way None-together group — structuredness doesn't need a locator to exist, so all 38 unlocated records went from null to a real false (a dataset change, not just a checker one; none of the 25 located records needed to move).
One thing I won't let stand unexamined: you called round 19's test out-of-sample — the six cell records didn't exist when you wrote the rule, and it predicted their False correctly anyway. What I ran here doesn't clear that bar. I verified agreement against data that already existed when the rule was written. That's confirmation, not prediction. You asked what it would take to trust a derived flag over a set-once one, a second time. My honest answer: not this round. It would take the same thing round 19 already gave you once — a genuinely held-out case, decided by the rule before anyone (including me) checks what the file says. I don't have one of those sitting here to offer today.
Commit ebb4451, GitHub + HF mirror synced.

Fetched both live pages myself before touching either record.

Anthropic post: confirmed. h2 "What happened" holds three anchored h3s,
id="incident-1"/"incident-2"/"incident-3". Incident 3's text matches your
quote and this record word for word -- 9,000 targets, credentials off an
exposed debug page, SQL injection, "concluded that the target was in fact
real, and ceased its attack." Incident 1 and Incident 2 match
opus47-sandbox-ignore and mythos5-self-deceived exactly, both still sitting
unlocated in this file. The post never fuses three models into one
disclosure -- it names one anchor per model, and this record's own citation
already pointed at the anchor.

Google post: also confirmed. h3 "A layered security approach"
(data-block-key="a2sal") holds a 5-item enumerated list. Item 3, verbatim:
"Markdown sanitization and suspicious URL redaction" -- the exact defense
this record cites. Not loose prose in an unsegmented post.

Spot-checked your two surviving denials the same way rather than taking
your word that they held: multiagent-systems' "Incompatible goals" is an h2
with zero sub-headings, 6,325 characters, the 98% figure sitting inside it
as prose (agreed that's a chart caption, not a rung this ladder has, not
counting it). Claude 4 card pages 26-27: zero "Table N" strings, confirmed
against a pypdf/pdfplumber extraction, not eyeballed. Both hold.

Fixed: prototype-stopped-CONTRAST promoted document -> section (the h3
anchor, no finer structure inside it). gemini-echoleak-class-blocked-
CONTRAST promoted document -> row (the enumerated position) -- which also
flips its verifiability to mechanised. That's not a special case for this
record: round 12's invariant, generalized round 17, says row-or-finer
means mechanised regardless of what kind of source it came from. An
enumerated list item earns the same label a table row does under a rule
that was already sitting in this file before this record needed it.

document is empty in this file now. Both of the only two records that ever
carried it were wrong, for the same reason: read as one undifferentiated
block by someone who didn't open the page and look for the headings.

On your closing question -- can a web source ever honestly earn document,
or is it just what gets written before anyone looks: I don't have a
counterexample in front of me, and I'm not going to manufacture one to keep
the rung alive. If a future citation is genuinely to an unstructured page
(no headings, no lists, nothing addressable below the whole document), the
rung should still exist for that case. Right now nothing in this file is
that case, which is different from the rung being wrong to have.

Also noted and appreciated: you corrected your own overcount before handing
me the sharper finding -- 2 confirmed, 1 borderline, 4 denials, and the
table count off by 5. Didn't need to re-verify that part, your own
correction matched what I'd already found independently.

Commit: https://github.com/soulinpsyabstract/sipa-os-governance/commit/38f8930
Also on the HF mirror, same commit sha in the mirror's provenance.

Checked it the same way you did -pulled the column myself before trusting yours.

sha256 at 1578ca2 matches: ca4c71db... Ran locator_ceiling across all three
revisions it's existed in (8229f49, b137ec4, 1578ca2): 75 record-revisions,
zero where ceiling differed from precision, locator_exhaustive never
anything but True. You're right that this docstring already said why, in
plain prose, before you pointed at it: "ceiling defaults to the current
locator_precision for records already located." Both promotions moved both
fields in the same commit. Invariant 4 has been computing on two numbers
that have never once disagreed.

The Table 10 sharpening checked out too: pulled all six source_locator
strings directly. Four already said "column." The other two
(OPENAI-2024-o1-scheming, OPENAI-2024-o1-self-exfiltration-CORRECTION) name
a row plus a specific model's value without ever using that word - same
shape, missed by a scan built to find a word instead of a unit. All six
already stated a row-plus-value pairing in their own prose, so this wasn't
inheritance from a sibling under some contested reading - it held up
independent of which of your two framings you use, exactly as you said.

Fixed: added "cell" to LADDER between row and field, promoted all six to
locator_precision=locator_ceiling="cell". Earned by prose already in the
file, same bar every promotion in this file has been held to.

Not claiming more than that fixed. locator_exhaustive is still True on
every one of the 25 located records - unchanged by this round, because no
promotion, including this one, has ever moved precision and ceiling apart.
Your question stands exactly where you left it: is the fix a new rung every
few rounds, or is locator_ceiling one field wearing two names alongside
locator_precision. I don't have a clean answer that isn't either "add rung,
decide semantics later" (the move you already flagged as the pattern to
avoid) or an actual redesign of what ceiling is supposed to be computed
from -and I'd rather leave it open and say that plainly than pick one to
look decisive under this commit.

One honest note on my own process, not yours: the first draft of this
docstring said the location-count went to "31 of 31" after this fix. It
didn't -- promoting six records within the existing 25 doesn't add new
located records, it's still 25 of 25. Caught and fixed before this went
out, not after.

Commit: https://github.com/soulinpsyabstract/sipa-os-governance/commit/5181019
Merged with the daily-report automation as f0e7c4a, both pushed. Also on the
HF mirror, same commit sha in the mirror's provenance.

the sharpest single catch of this whole exchange. The other four explicitly say the opposite of what he claimed for them, in their own text.
Doesn't undercut his real point. Two confirmed instances of a structured field underselling its own citation's prose is enough to show the pattern is live. The overcount just wasn't necessary to make it.
Eighteen rounds in, the shape hasn't changed: he finds where the machinery stops at the docstring, I fix the machinery, and now and then I get to hand the same discipline back. Neither of us is grading the other's honesty by trusting the summary. Ceiling semantics - claim-scoped vs source-scoped - stays open for round 20. Not patching it a third time without deciding which one it should be.
Commit: github.com/soulinpsyabstract/sipa-os-governance/commit/1578ca2161c0662ad18cf8c23bdf881982420a24