# 1. Verdict on decision and artifacts **Boundary: settled. Preserved unchanged.** Claude (`claude-study.raw.md`) and Grok (`grok-study.raw.md`) converge on every load-bearing element, and `local-evidence.md` states the same disposition: - WM-POL-009 is **reused/profiled** as one forum-qualified, docket-qualified proceeding; it is not the matter. - **Dispute / Matter** is an independent, **identifier-unassigned** root, because one contested matter persists across transfer, severance, consolidation, first instance, appeal, recognition and enforcement. - Procedural **claim / counterclaim / defense** and **ProceedingEvent** stay case-owned dependents; neither becomes a root. - **Party allegation** is a WM-KNW-007 profile; **adjudicated finding** and **legal conclusion** stay authority-owned. - **Case Outcome** is a projection over judgment identity, disposition, finality and remedy references, never a root or second master of finality. - **Appeal / Review, Enforcement / Recognition Case, Remedy Obligation** remain unassigned gaps pending registry adjudication. - Claimed amount is never confirmed debt; provision recognition requires its own authorized act. - No identifier is allocated. Only two reconcilable tensions exist in the supplied evidence, and neither disturbs the decision: - **Appellate recording.** Claude: an appeal is "another WM-POL-009 instance in the appellate forum." Grok: "do not subtype appeal or enforcement into the completed WM-POL-009 profile." These are compatible once separated: the appellate **docket mechanics** may be recorded on a WM-POL-009 instance, while the **Appeal / Review record** (route, grounds, deadline, stay, effect on finality) is *not* covered by this profile and stays unassigned. The artifacts are silent on this split — a defect (D21), not a change of decision. - **Cardinality.** Grok adds "a proceeding has exactly one primary Dispute / Matter"; Claude and `local-evidence.md` do not contradict it. Adopted as a missing cardinality contract (D6), not as a new boundary. **Artifacts: conditionally rejected on semantics, structurally compliant on minimums.** `validation-policy.json` minimums are all met by the current artifacts: `modelId` null, `registryId` null, `allocationState` `unassigned`, 14 invariants ≥ 8, 6 references ≥ 3, 7 fixtures ≥ 3, positive and negative fixtures both present, stable-identity statement present, independent lifecycle present. The artifacts nonetheless carry **24 material semantic defects** across authority, identity, lifecycle, references, time, provenance, privacy/access, finance separation, incomplete reserved specs and publication holds. All 24 are deterministically repairable by literal edits; none requires reopening the boundary, allocating an identifier, promoting a reserved spec, or converting a projection or dependent into a root. # 2. Material defects and exact deterministic remediation Paths are JSON pointers into the named file. `+` = add, `−` = remove, `→` = replace. ## Authority and mastership **D1 — Profile binds four reserved bases that have no complete specification (unsatisfiable composition).** `profile-candidate.json` lists WM-POL-019/020/021/022 in `/bases`, and `local-evidence.md` plus Claude both record them as `candidate`/boundary-review-required with WM-POL-009 declaring 019/020/021 as CHILD `required: true`. - `/bases` → `["WM-POL-009","WM-KNW-007","WM-KNW-008","WM-KNW-010","WM-ECO-006","WM-ECO-018"]` - `+ /blockedBases` = `[{"target":"WM-POL-019","expectedScope":"filing identity and content","status":"reserved-incomplete","profileBinding":"none","parentDeclaredRequiredChild":true},{"target":"WM-POL-020","expectedScope":"evidence identity, custody, integrity","status":"reserved-incomplete","profileBinding":"none","parentDeclaredRequiredChild":true},{"target":"WM-POL-021","expectedScope":"judgment or award identity, text, composition, reasons, corrections","status":"reserved-incomplete","profileBinding":"none","parentDeclaredRequiredChild":true}]` - `+ /compositionHold` = `{"state":"unsatisfiable","reason":"WM-POL-009 declares WM-POL-019/020/021 as CHILD required:true while all three lack complete specifications","resolution":"registry adjudication","promotionForbidden":true}` - `+ /constraints/-` = `"No constraint of this profile may be evaluated against a blockedBases target; references to filing, evidence and judgment masters are recorded as deferred, never bound."` **D2 — WM-POL-022 semantic contradiction treated as a usable base.** Claude records the registry value as *Sanction / Sentence* (parent WM-POL-021), contradicting any Appeal / Review expectation; no constraint in `profile-candidate.json` references WM-POL-022 at all. - `/bases` already purged of `"WM-POL-022"` by D1. - `+ /relationContradictions/-` = `{"target":"WM-POL-022","registryName":"Sanction / Sentence","declaredParent":"WM-POL-021","conflictsWith":"Appeal / Review expectation","effect":"not a base, not a reference, not an appeal identifier","resolution":"registry adjudication"}` - `allocation-candidate.json` `/holds/3` → `"WM-POL-019/020/021 specifications are incomplete and WM-POL-022 is reserved as Sanction / Sentence, which does not satisfy any Appeal / Review expectation; none may be promoted."` **D3 — WM-POL-023 enforcement reference is dangling and unrecorded.** WM-POL-021 references it for enforcement; it is absent from the reservations. - `profile-candidate.json` `+ /danglingReferences` = `[{"target":"WM-POL-023","referencedBy":"WM-POL-021","role":"enforcement","registryState":"absent-from-reservations","action":"record-only","reservationForbidden":true,"baseBindingForbidden":true}]` - Do **not** add WM-POL-023 to `/bases`, `/blockedBases`, or `allocation-candidate.json` `/boundary/references`. **D4 — Authority acts have no authority binding and no separation of initiation from authorization.** LOCAL-INV-7/8/15 and Claude's governance section require accountable authority with separated initiation and authorization for adjudication, adverse orders, finality, sealed disclosure, provision restatement and disposition; no artifact carries the fields. - `allocation-candidate.json` `+ /authorityActs` = `{"actsRequiringAuthority":["admission","exclusion","sealing","protective-order","finality","set-aside","recognition","enforcement-authorisation","disposition","closure","reopen","provision-remeasurement","sealed-disclosure"],"requiredFields":["actKind","authorityRef","competenceBasis","initiatedBy","authorizedBy","effectiveFrom","recordedAt"],"segregationOfDuties":{"rule":"initiatedBy != authorizedBy","enforcement":"reject"},"flagFormsForbidden":true,"appendOnly":true}` - `+ /authorityActs/agentPermitted` = `["reversible clerical docketing","validation proposal"]`; `+ /authorityActs/agentForbidden` = `["adjudication","adverse order","finality","sealed disclosure","provision restatement","disposition"]` **D5 — Mastership statement is vague and record classes are not distinguished.** `local-evidence.md` says the enterprise case record is a *source-qualified mirror* while the forum masters the docket; the candidate collapses both into one sentence. - `/identityTest/mastership` → `"Enterprise legal-matter management authority masters the Dispute / Matter record only; the forum masters the docket, parties master their own identity, and all proceeding-derived content is a source-qualified mirror."` - `+ /recordClasses` = `{"DisputeMatter":"enterprise-mastered","ProceedingMembership":"enterprise-asserted","DisputeRelation":"enterprise-asserted","proceedingDerivedAttributes":"source-qualified-mirror","partyIdentity":"externally-mastered","forumOrganization":"externally-mastered"}` - `+ /boundary/excludes/-` = `"docket mastership, forum organization identity and party master data"` ## Identity **D6 — `ProceedingMembership` identity is insufficient and the primary-membership cardinality is unstated.** `/objects/ProceedingMembership/identity` is `["disputeMatterId","proceedingRef"]` while the object carries `relationKind`, `validFrom`, `validTo` — so no two typed or successive memberships can coexist, and nothing forbids one proceeding belonging to two disputes (GROK-INV-1). - `/objects/ProceedingMembership/identity` → `["disputeMatterId","proceedingRef","relationKind","validFrom"]` - `+ /objects/ProceedingMembership/cardinality` = `{"disputeToProceedings":"0..n","proceedingToPrimaryDispute":"exactly 1","openPrimaryMembershipsPerProceeding":1,"enforcement":"reject second open relationKind=primary for the same proceedingRef"}` - `+ /objects/ProceedingMembership/required/-` = `"relationKindVocabularyRef"`; `+ /objects/ProceedingMembership/relationKindVocabulary` = `["primary","transfer","severance","consolidation","appeal","remand","recognition","enforcement"]` - `+ /objects/ProceedingMembership/appendOnly` = `true`; closure of a membership sets `validTo` only. **D7 — `successorRef` is an untyped scalar that permits dispute-identity merge.** `/objects/DisputeMatter/optional` contains `successorRef`, contradicting CAND-INV-3 and CAND-INV-14. - `− /objects/DisputeMatter/optional/1` (`"successorRef"`) - `+ /objects/DisputeRelation` = `{"identity":["fromDisputeMatterId","toDisputeMatterId","relationKind","validFrom"],"required":["relationKind","validFrom","authorityRef","assertedBy","assertionCapacity"],"optional":["validTo","basis"],"relationKindVocabulary":["successor","severed-from","consolidated-with","related-matter"],"appendOnly":true,"identityMergeForbidden":true,"recordClass":"enterprise-asserted"}` - `+ /invariants/-` = `"A dispute relation links two retained dispute identities and never merges, replaces or retires either identity."` **D8 / D24 — Non-identifying keys are neither excluded from identity nor modelled as aliases, and the existing fixture `case-number-global-id` asserts the wrong rule.** LOCAL-INV-2 and CLAUDE-INV-2 state that case number, title, party, forum, year, ECLI and digest never identify a case; the candidate invariant list omits this entirely, and `fixtures.json` `/cases/6/expect` ("rejected without forum-qualified authority") implies forum-qualification *would* make a case number an identity. - `allocation-candidate.json` `+ /invariants/-` = `"Case number, title, party, forum, year, ECLI and file digest never identify a dispute or a proceeding, alone or in combination."` - `+ /objects/DisputeMatter/identityRules` = `{"opaque":true,"derivationForbiddenFrom":["caseNumber","title","party","forum","year","ECLI","fileDigest"],"recycling":"forbidden","retiredIdentifiers":"retained"}` - `+ /objects/DisputeMatter/optional/-` = `"aliasKeys"`; `+ /objects/DisputeMatter/aliasKeys` = `{"kind":"non-identifying source-qualified alias","required":["aliasScheme","aliasValue","sourceRef","sourceAsOf"],"identityUse":"forbidden","uniquenessClaim":"none"}` - `fixtures.json` `/cases/6/expect` → `"Rejected: a case number is a non-identifying source-qualified alias even when forum-qualified; only an opaque assigned proceeding identifier is identity."` **D9 — Appeal / Review attributes are embedded in `ProceedingMembership`, creating an implicit root for an unassigned gap.** `/objects/ProceedingMembership/optional` carries `challengedDecisionRef`, `grounds`, `effect` — review-link mastership over judgment content whose master (WM-POL-021) has no specification. - `/objects/ProceedingMembership/optional` → `["validTo"]` - `+ /deferredStructures` = `{"ReviewLink":{"status":"unassigned-gap","proposedScope":["challengedDecisionRef","route","grounds","deadline","stay","effectOnFinality"],"owner":"pending registry adjudication","fieldsActive":false,"identifierAllocated":false,"mastershipClaimed":"none"},"EnforcementRecognitionCase":{"status":"unassigned-gap","fieldsActive":false},"RemedyObligation":{"status":"unassigned-gap","fieldsActive":false}}` - `+ /invariants/-` = `"Dispute membership records only the typed relation and its validity interval; no review, remedy or enforcement content is mastered on it."` **D10 — Case Outcome projection has no derivation contract, leaving it one step from root promotion.** `profile-candidate.json` `/constraints/4` names it a projection but specifies nothing. - `+ /projections` = `{"CaseOutcome":{"kind":"projection","identity":"none","lifecycle":"none","nonAuthoritative":true,"required":["asOf","derivedFrom"],"derivedFrom":["judgmentRef(blocked: WM-POL-021 incomplete)","finalityAssertionRef(case-owned)","remedyRef(deferred: Remedy Obligation unassigned)"],"mastershipForbiddenOver":["judgment text","reasons","finality event","remedy terms"],"instantiationForbidden":["RemedyObligation"],"persistenceAsRoot":"forbidden"}}` - `/constraints/4` → `"Case Outcome is an as-of projection over judgment identity, disposition, finality and remedy references; it has no identity, no lifecycle and no mastership, and it never instantiates a remedy obligation."` ## Lifecycle **D11 — Lifecycle is a bare state list with no transitions, no authority and incoherent `retained`.** Both `/identityTest/independentLifecycle` and `/objects/DisputeMatter/lifecycle` list `identified, active, partially-resolved, resolved, reopened, closed, retained` with no ordering; `retained` is a retention condition, not a peer state. - `+ /objects/DisputeMatter/lifecycleTransitions` = `[["identified","active"],["active","partially-resolved"],["active","resolved"],["partially-resolved","resolved"],["partially-resolved","active"],["resolved","reopened"],["closed","reopened"],["resolved","closed"],["active","closed"],["partially-resolved","closed"],["reopened","active"]]` - `/identityTest/independentLifecycle` and `/objects/DisputeMatter/lifecycle` → `["identified","active","partially-resolved","resolved","reopened","closed"]` - `+ /objects/DisputeMatter/retention` = `{"flag":"retained","appliesFrom":"closed","destructive":false,"endsAccessRestrictions":false,"state":false}` - `+ /objects/DisputeMatter/transitionContract` = `{"requiredFields":["fromState","toState","authorityRef","initiatedBy","authorizedBy","effectiveFrom","recordedAt"],"undeclaredTransitions":"reject","appendOnly":true,"priorStatesRetained":true}` **D12 — Closure has no coherence rule against open memberships and no non-cascade clause.** - `+ /objects/DisputeMatter/closureRule` = `{"precondition":"every ProceedingMembership has validTo, or an openProceedingAcknowledgement with authorityRef is recorded","cascade":"none","preserves":["ProceedingMembership","DisputeRelation","referenced filings","referenced evidence rulings","referenced judgments","access restrictions"],"deletion":"forbidden","tombstoneOnly":true}` - `/invariants/11` → `"Non-destructive closure preserves memberships, relations, filings, evidence rulings, judgments and successor links, and never cascades deletion or tombstones to referenced records."` ## References **D13 — References carry purpose strings only: no relation kind, cardinality, requiredness or lifecycle contract; CONTAINS vs REFERENCES is undetermined.** `local-evidence.md` records that all candidate CONTAINS relations lack approved lifecycle and cardinality contracts; left as-is, "Docket-qualified proceedings belonging to the matter" reads as containment and would make the dispute own the docket. For every element of `/boundary/references`, add: `"relationKind":"REFERENCES"`, `"direction":"outbound"`, `"cardinality":"0..n"`, `"required":false`, `"lifecycleContract":"unapproved-candidate"`, `"containsForbidden":true`, `"mastershipTransferred":false`. - WM-POL-009 entry `purpose` → `"Docket-qualified proceedings linked through ProceedingMembership; the dispute references and never contains a proceeding or its docket."` - `+ /boundary/relationContracts` = `{"state":"unapproved","approvedCardinality":false,"approvedLifecycle":false,"effect":"no CONTAINS relation may be evaluated or installed"}` **D14 — WM-KNW-010 reference omits its unresolved triple-edge contradiction.** Claude records conflicting CHILD, EXTEND and ALIGN edges from WM-KNW-010 to WM-KNW-007 with the parent relation absent from the ledger. - WM-KNW-010 reference `+ "caveat"` = `"Unresolved CHILD/EXTEND/ALIGN edge contradiction to WM-KNW-007 with the parent relation absent from the ledger; usable as non-authoritative rationale structure only, confers no legal force and transfers no parentage."` - `profile-candidate.json` `+ /relationContradictions/-` = `{"target":"WM-KNW-010","conflict":"CHILD + EXTEND + ALIGN to WM-KNW-007","ledgerParent":"absent","resolution":"registry adjudication","profileUse":"rationale structure only"}` **D15 — Declared upstream gaps are not recorded on the candidate.** WM-KNW-008 declares legal admissibility and chain of custody a gap; no artifact records that this leaves evidence custody unowned while WM-POL-020 is incomplete. - `allocation-candidate.json` `+ /declaredGaps` = `[{"gap":"evidence identity, chain of custody and integrity","declaredBy":"WM-KNW-008","intendedOwner":"WM-POL-020","ownerState":"reserved-incomplete","currentOwner":"none","caseScope":"submission, admission, exclusion, weight and use only"},{"gap":"legal admissibility determination","declaredBy":"WM-KNW-008","owner":"authority act within the proceeding"}]` ## Time **D16 — No time format, no distinct time fields, and membership `validFrom` is conflatable with legal times.** CAND-INV-13 asserts distinct times while no object carries any of them. - `+ /timeModel` = `{"format":"RFC3339 with seconds and explicit UTC offset","distinctTimes":["disputeArisingTime","filingTime","receiptTime","acceptanceTime","serviceTime","hearingTime","deliberationTime","decisionTime","correctionTime","legalEffectTime","finalityTime","publicationTime","enforcementTime","observationTime","ingestionTime","knowledgeTime","recordedAt"],"derivationForbidden":"no time may be defaulted, copied or computed from another","serviceTime":"rule-derived and may differ from transmission and receipt","clockSkewMerge":"forbidden"}` - `/objects/DisputeMatter/required` → `["subject","controversyScope","partyCapacityRefs","status","recordedAt","observationTime","knowledgeTime"]`; `/objects/DisputeMatter/optional` → `["originatingInstrumentRef","aliasKeys","disputeArisingTime","sourceAsOf"]` - `/objects/ProceedingMembership/required` → `["relationKind","relationKindVocabularyRef","validFrom","recordedAt","assertedBy","assertionCapacity"]` - `+ /objects/ProceedingMembership/validFromSemantics` = `"Dispute-side record interval only; never service, legal-effect, finality, publication or enforcement time."` ## Provenance **D17 — No provenance or author/capacity fields; Grok-evidence provenance unrecorded; review holds are stale.** LOCAL-INV-3 requires every assertion to name author and procedural capacity. `grok-prompt.md` is titled "Exact unsent Grok prompt" while `grok-study.raw.md` contains a response, so the response cannot be attributed to that transport. - `+ /provenance` = `{"requiredOnEveryAssertion":["assertedBy","assertionCapacity","sourceRef","sourceAsOf","recordClass"],"capacityVocabulary":["party","representative","forum-authority","clerical-agent","enterprise-records-authority"],"unattributedAssertions":"reject","mirrorAttributes":"source-qualified, never enterprise-mastered"}` - `+ /reviewProvenance` = `{"localSynthesis":{"artifact":"local-evidence.md","providerDiversity":"single"},"claudeStudy":{"artifact":"claude-study.raw.md","class":"provider-response"},"grokStudy":{"artifact":"grok-study.raw.md","class":"visible-response-only","promptArtifact":"grok-prompt.md","promptState":"recorded-as-unsent","transportVerification":"none","hiddenReasoning":"excluded","sourcesControl":"excluded","evidentiaryWeight":"visible text only"},"frozenAudit":{"state":"complete","rerunRequired":false}}` - `/holds/1` → `"Independent Grok review has been received and reconciled; its provenance is visible-response-only with unverified transport."` - `/holds/4` → `"Crosswalks (Akoma Ntoso, ECLI, LegalRuleML), source pins and jurisdictional profiles remain unverified; the frozen audit is complete."` - `profile-candidate.json` `/holds/2` → `"Independent Grok review is reconciled and the frozen audit is complete; base drafts remain non-canonical single- or dual-provider drafts with external review waived or absent."` - `+ /baseProvenance` (profile) = `[{"target":"WM-POL-009","providers":["Codex"],"externalReview":"waived","publishableCanonical":false},{"target":"WM-ECO-018","providers":["Codex"],"externalReview":"waived","publishableCanonical":false,"selfContradiction":"out-of-scope conflict in a service role per EM-FIN-04"},{"target":"WM-KNW-007","providers":["Claude"],"publishableCanonical":false},{"target":"WM-KNW-008","providers":["Claude"],"publishableCanonical":false},{"target":"WM-KNW-010","providers":["Claude"],"publishableCanonical":false},{"target":"WM-ECO-006","publishableCanonical":false}]` ## Privacy and access **D18 — The candidate has no access or privacy section at all, yet `partyCapacityRefs` is required and CAND-INV-9 asserts surviving restrictions.** - `+ /access` = `{"defaultDecision":"deny","views":[{"name":"party","purposeBound":true,"requires":["authorityRef","partyRoleRef","expiry"]},{"name":"forum","purposeBound":true,"requires":["authorityRef","expiry"]},{"name":"public","purposeBound":true,"excludes":["sealed","protected-order-scoped","redacted-source"]},{"name":"confidential","requires":["authorityRef","expiry"]},{"name":"sealed","requires":["orderRef","authorityRef","initiatedBy","authorizedBy","expiry"]},{"name":"redacted","requires":["orderRef","redactionBasis"]},{"name":"statistical","aggregationMinimum":"no single-dispute disclosure","reIdentification":"forbidden","linkageKeys":"forbidden"}],"restrictionModel":{"scope":"order-scoped","boundTo":"the authority act that created it","inheritance":"by reference into successor proceedings, never by copy","survives":["decision","correction","appeal","set-aside","closure","retention"],"changeableOnlyBy":"authorized successor order","retroactiveWithdrawal":"forbidden"},"setAsideEffect":{"accessToPriorDecisionFindingsAndRulings":"unchanged"},"dataMinimisation":{"partyIdentity":"reference only","copyOfPartyMasterData":"forbidden","specialCategoryContent":"not stored on the dispute root"}}` - `+ /invariants/-` = `"Setting a decision aside never withdraws access to that decision, its findings, its evidence rulings or its provenance."` - `+ /invariants/-` = `"The statistical view forbids re-identification and never discloses a single dispute."` ## Finance separation **D19 — Amount fields are not excluded, and the no-subscription and segregation rules are missing.** CAND-INV-10/11 and LOCAL-INV-14/15 are asserted but unenforced; Grok adds that adjacent financial-statement drafts must not subscribe to claim amounts; Claude requires separated initiation and authorization for provision restatement. - `+ /objects/DisputeMatter/forbiddenFields` = `["claimedAmount","awardedAmount","provisionAmount","debtAmount","currency","paymentStatus"]` - `+ /financeBoundary` = `{"claimedAmount":{"owner":"proceeding-owned procedural claim","meaning":"relief sought","financialEffect":"none"},"judgmentAmount":{"owner":"WM-POL-021 (reserved-incomplete)","financialEffect":"none without a separate authorized accounting act"},"provision":{"owner":"WM-ECO-018 statement fact","required":["measurementBasis","estimateBinding","disclosureClass","authorityRef","initiatedBy","authorizedBy"],"derivationFromClaimOrJudgment":"forbidden","subscriptionToClaimAmounts":"forbidden"},"confirmedDebt":{"basis":["final enforceable decision","agreed settlement instrument","contractual basis"],"owner":"obligation master, outside this contour"},"automaticTransitionsForbidden":["provisioning","recognition","derecognition","payment","enforcement"],"segregationOfDuties":{"rule":"initiatedBy != authorizedBy","appliesTo":["provision recognition","remeasurement","derecognition","disposition"]}}` - `profile-candidate.json` `/constraints/5` → `"Provisioning, recognition, derecognition and payment never follow from a claimed or judgment amount; each requires its own authorized accounting act with initiation separated from authorization, and no financial-statement draft subscribes to claim amounts."` ## Incomplete reserved specifications and publication holds **D20 — The profile carries no publication hold and no catalogue-identifier denial; the README states no hold.** `allocation-candidate.json` has `canonicalPublishable: false`; `profile-candidate.json` has only `newRuntimeId: false`. - `profile-candidate.json` `+ /canonicalPublishable` = `false`; `+ /newCatalogueId` = `false`; `+ /publicationHold` = `{"state":"held","installabilityClaimed":false,"publicationReadinessClaimed":false,"canonicalCompletenessClaimed":false,"reason":"all bases publishableCanonical=false; three required child specifications incomplete"}` - `allocation-candidate.json` `+ /newRuntimeId` = `false`; `+ /newCatalogueId` = `false`; `+ /publicationHold` = `{"state":"held","installabilityClaimed":false,"publicationReadinessClaimed":false}` - `README.md` `+` final line: `"No identifier is allocated, no canonical completeness, installability or publication readiness is claimed, and WM-POL-019/020/021/022 remain unpromoted."` **D21 — The profile is silent on appellate, enforcement and recognition scope (the Claude/Grok reconciliation point).** - `+ /outOfProfileScope` = `["Appeal / Review record: route, grounds, deadline, stay, effect on finality — identifier-unassigned gap","Enforcement / Recognition Case — identifier-unassigned gap","Remedy Obligation — identifier-unassigned gap","filing content and identity","evidence identity, custody and integrity","judgment or award content","remedy execution and satisfaction","financial provision and confirmed debt identity"]` - `+ /constraints/-` = `"An appellate or enforcement docket may be recorded as a separate WM-POL-009 proceeding instance for docket mechanics only; this profile declares no appellate, recognition or enforcement coverage and no appeal subtype of the first-instance profile."` - `+ /constraints/-` = `"An appeal is a successor proceeding with its own identity and never replaces, renumbers or absorbs the first-instance proceeding."` **D22 — `validation-policy.json` cannot deterministically validate the remediated artifacts or the required fixture schema.** - `/format` → `"vercy-allocation-validation/v2"`; `+ /contourId` = `"EM-LEG-05"`; `+ /appliesTo` = `["allocation-candidate.json","profile-candidate.json","fixtures.json","README.md"]` - `/requirements/minimumFixtures` → `76`; `+ /requirements/minimumPositiveFixtures` = `29`; `+ /requirements/minimumNegativeFixtures` = `47` - `+ /requirements`: `"requiresFixtureTargets": true`, `"requiresFixtureViolatesMapping": true`, `"requiresDefectClosureMapping": true`, `"requiresNegativeExpectedCode": true`, `"requiresUniqueFixtureIds": true`, `"requiresUniqueExpectedCodes": true`, `"forbidsIdentifierAllocation": true`, `"forbidsReservedSpecPromotion": ["WM-POL-019","WM-POL-020","WM-POL-021","WM-POL-022"]`, `"forbidsProjectionAsRoot": ["CaseOutcome"]`, `"forbidsDependentAsRoot": ["procedural claim","counterclaim","defense","ProceedingEvent"]`, `"forbidsIncompleteBaseBinding": true`, `"requiresBlockedBasesDeclaration": true`, `"requiresDanglingReferenceDeclaration": true`, `"requiresRelationKindAndCardinality": true`, `"requiresLifecycleTransitionMap": true`, `"requiresAuthorityActContract": true`, `"requiresSegregationOfDuties": true`, `"requiresTimeFormatRFC3339WithOffset": true`, `"requiresDistinctTimeFields": true`, `"requiresProvenanceFields": true`, `"requiresReviewProvenance": true`, `"requiresAccessPolicyDefaultDeny": true`, `"requiresStatisticalReIdentificationBan": true`, `"requiresFinanceSeparation": true`, `"requiresPublicationHold": true`, `"minimumInvariants": 18`, `"minimumReferences": 6` **D23 — Fixture file is schema-deficient and its inventory contradicts the audit brief.** `fixtures.json` cases lack `target`, `violates`, `closesDefect` and `expectedCode`; ids are unprefixed; the file holds **7** cases while the brief states 4. - `/format` → `"vercy-enterprise-allocation-fixtures/v2"`; `/candidateName` → retained, `+ /targets` = `["allocation-candidate.json","profile-candidate.json","validation-policy.json","README.md"]`; `+ /inventory` = `{"existing":7,"added":69,"total":76,"positive":29,"negative":47}`; `+ /briefDiscrepancy` = `"The audit brief states 4 existing fixtures; the frozen file contains 7. The file is authoritative."` - Re-key the 7 existing ids with the `emleg05-` prefix and add the missing fields: - `first-instance-appeal` → id `emleg05-x01`, `target":"allocation-candidate.json"`, `violates":"CAND-INV-2"`, `closesDefect":"D6"` - `protected-evidence` → `emleg05-x02`, `target":"allocation-candidate.json"`, `violates":"CAND-INV-9"`, `closesDefect":"D18"` - `reversal-history` → `emleg05-x03`, `target":"allocation-candidate.json"`, `violates":"CAND-INV-8"`, `closesDefect":"D11"` - `claim-is-debt` → `emleg05-x04`, `target":"allocation-candidate.json"`, `violates":"CAND-INV-10"`, `closesDefect":"D19"`, `expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E44"` - `appeal-overwrites` → `emleg05-x05`, `target":"allocation-candidate.json"`, `violates":"CAND-INV-7"`, `closesDefect":"D11"`, `expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E45"` - `case-owns-evidence` → `emleg05-x06`, `target":"allocation-candidate.json"`, `violates":"LOCAL-INV-6"`, `closesDefect":"D15"`, `expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E46"` - `case-number-global-id` → `emleg05-x07`, `target":"allocation-candidate.json"`, `violates":"LOCAL-INV-2"`, `closesDefect":"D8"`, `expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E47"`, plus the corrected `expect` from D24. **D24 — Folded into D8** above: the existing `case-number-global-id` expectation contradicts LOCAL-INV-2 / CLAUDE-INV-2 by implying forum qualification confers identity. # 3. Additional fixtures Label convention: `violates` cites the frozen invariant lists — `LOCAL-INV-n` (`local-evidence.md` §Required invariants), `CAND-INV-n` (`allocation-candidate.json` `/invariants`), `GROK-INV-n`, `CLAUDE-INV-n` — or a defect id where no listed invariant applies. For positive cases `violates` names the invariant the case upholds; for negative cases, the invariant breached. No model or registry identifier is allocated anywhere below. ```json [ {"id":"emleg05-f01","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"Profile declares bases WM-POL-009, WM-KNW-007, WM-KNW-008, WM-KNW-010, WM-ECO-006, WM-ECO-018 and lists WM-POL-019/020/021 under blockedBases with profileBinding none.","expect":"Accepted; no constraint is evaluated against a blocked base and no reserved specification is promoted.","violates":"D1","closesDefect":"D1"}, {"id":"emleg05-f02","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Profile binds WM-POL-019 as an active base and relies on it as a required CHILD component.","expect":"Rejected: the base has no complete specification, so the composition is unsatisfiable.","violates":"D1","closesDefect":"D1","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E01"}, {"id":"emleg05-f03","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"WM-POL-022 is bound as the Appeal / Review base.","expect":"Rejected: WM-POL-022 is reserved as Sanction / Sentence and no appeal identifier is reserved.","violates":"D2","closesDefect":"D2","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E02"}, {"id":"emleg05-f04","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"WM-POL-022 appears only in relationContradictions with registryName Sanction / Sentence and resolution registry adjudication.","expect":"Accepted; contradiction recorded without base binding or identifier use.","violates":"D2","closesDefect":"D2"}, {"id":"emleg05-f05","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"WM-POL-023 is added to bases or to the reservations to satisfy the enforcement reference.","expect":"Rejected: the target is absent from the reservations and may only be recorded as dangling.","violates":"D3","closesDefect":"D3","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E03"}, {"id":"emleg05-f06","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"WM-POL-023 is recorded in danglingReferences as referencedBy WM-POL-021 with action record-only.","expect":"Accepted; the dangling enforcement reference is visible and unresolved.","violates":"D3","closesDefect":"D3"}, {"id":"emleg05-f07","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"A sealing order records actKind, authorityRef, competenceBasis, initiatedBy, authorizedBy, effectiveFrom and recordedAt with initiatedBy different from authorizedBy.","expect":"Accepted as an append-only authority act.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-7","closesDefect":"D4"}, {"id":"emleg05-f08","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Admissibility is stored as a boolean flag with no authorityRef or competence basis.","expect":"Rejected: admissibility is an authority act, not a flag.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-7","closesDefect":"D4","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E04"}, {"id":"emleg05-f09","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"The same actor is recorded as initiatedBy and authorizedBy for a finality assertion.","expect":"Rejected: initiation and authorization must be separated.","violates":"D4","closesDefect":"D4","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E05"}, {"id":"emleg05-f10","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"recordClasses marks DisputeMatter enterprise-mastered, proceeding-derived attributes source-qualified-mirror, party identity and forum organization externally-mastered.","expect":"Accepted; mastership layers are explicit.","violates":"CAND-INV-4","closesDefect":"D5"}, {"id":"emleg05-f11","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"The dispute record asserts mastership over the forum docket.","expect":"Rejected: the forum masters the docket and the enterprise record is a source-qualified mirror.","violates":"CAND-INV-4","closesDefect":"D5","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E06"}, {"id":"emleg05-f12","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"The same dispute and proceeding carry a primary membership and a later consolidation membership with different relationKind and validFrom.","expect":"Accepted; the four-part membership identity admits both rows.","violates":"CAND-INV-2","closesDefect":"D6"}, {"id":"emleg05-f13","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"One proceeding holds two open memberships with relationKind primary to two different disputes.","expect":"Rejected: a proceeding has exactly one open primary Dispute / Matter.","violates":"GROK-INV-1","closesDefect":"D6","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E07"}, {"id":"emleg05-f14","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"A severance appends a DisputeRelation of kind severed-from with authorityRef while both dispute identities are retained.","expect":"Accepted; append-only typed relation, no identity merge.","violates":"CAND-INV-3","closesDefect":"D7"}, {"id":"emleg05-f15","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"successorRef on the dispute root is used to merge two dispute identities into one.","expect":"Rejected: dispute identities never merge and the untyped successor field is removed.","violates":"CAND-INV-3","closesDefect":"D7","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E08"}, {"id":"emleg05-f16","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"An ECLI, or a forum plus case number plus year, is used as the dispute or proceeding identifier.","expect":"Rejected: those keys never identify a dispute or proceeding, alone or combined.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-2","closesDefect":"D8","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E09"}, {"id":"emleg05-f17","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"Case number, title and ECLI are stored as aliasKeys with aliasScheme, sourceRef and sourceAsOf and identityUse forbidden.","expect":"Accepted; alias keys are non-identifying and claim no uniqueness.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-2","closesDefect":"D8"}, {"id":"emleg05-f18","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A retired disputeMatterId is reassigned to a new matter.","expect":"Rejected: dispute identifiers are never recycled and retired identifiers are retained.","violates":"CAND-INV-14","closesDefect":"D8","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E10"}, {"id":"emleg05-f19","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"ProceedingMembership stores challengedDecisionRef, grounds and effect for an appeal.","expect":"Rejected: that is review-link mastership for an identifier-unassigned gap over an incomplete judgment master.","violates":"D9","closesDefect":"D9","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E11"}, {"id":"emleg05-f20","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"deferredStructures records ReviewLink, EnforcementRecognitionCase and RemedyObligation with fieldsActive false and no identifier.","expect":"Accepted; the gaps remain unassigned and unimplemented.","violates":"GROK-INV-11","closesDefect":"D9"}, {"id":"emleg05-f21","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Case Outcome is given its own identity, lifecycle and finality mastership.","expect":"Rejected: a projection is never promoted to a root or a second master of finality.","violates":"GROK-INV-7","closesDefect":"D10","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E12"}, {"id":"emleg05-f22","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"Case Outcome is rendered with asOf and derivedFrom, nonAuthoritative true, no identity and no lifecycle.","expect":"Accepted as an as-of projection over judgment, finality and remedy references.","violates":"GROK-INV-7","closesDefect":"D10"}, {"id":"emleg05-f23","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"A dispute moves resolved to reopened with authorityRef, initiatedBy, authorizedBy and effectiveFrom, and prior states are retained.","expect":"Accepted as a declared, append-only transition.","violates":"D11","closesDefect":"D11"}, {"id":"emleg05-f24","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A dispute transitions from retained to active, or from identified directly to closed with no authority act.","expect":"Rejected: retained is a retention flag, not a state, and undeclared transitions are refused.","violates":"D11","closesDefect":"D11","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E13"}, {"id":"emleg05-f25","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A dispute is closed while a primary ProceedingMembership is still open and no openProceedingAcknowledgement is recorded.","expect":"Rejected: closure preconditions are unmet.","violates":"D12","closesDefect":"D12","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E14"}, {"id":"emleg05-f26","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"Closure records an authority act, sets membership validTo, and preserves memberships, relations, filings, evidence rulings, judgments and restrictions.","expect":"Accepted as non-destructive closure with no cascade.","violates":"CAND-INV-12","closesDefect":"D12"}, {"id":"emleg05-f27","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"The dispute declares a CONTAINS relation to WM-POL-009 proceedings.","expect":"Rejected: the dispute references proceedings and never contains them or their docket; CONTAINS contracts are unapproved.","violates":"D13","closesDefect":"D13","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E15"}, {"id":"emleg05-f28","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"Every boundary reference carries relationKind REFERENCES, direction outbound, cardinality 0..n, required false, lifecycleContract unapproved-candidate and mastershipTransferred false.","expect":"Accepted; reference contracts are explicit and uninstallable until approved.","violates":"D13","closesDefect":"D13"}, {"id":"emleg05-f29","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"WM-KNW-010 rationale is treated as conferring legal force, or its CHILD edge is used to inherit WM-KNW-007 parentage.","expect":"Rejected: the edge triple is unresolved and rationale confers no legal force or parentage.","violates":"D14","closesDefect":"D14","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E16"}, {"id":"emleg05-f30","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"The WM-KNW-010 reference records the CHILD/EXTEND/ALIGN contradiction and absent ledger parent as a caveat with rationale-only use.","expect":"Accepted; the contradiction is visible and bounded.","violates":"D14","closesDefect":"D14"}, {"id":"emleg05-f31","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"declaredGaps records evidence identity, custody and integrity as declared by WM-KNW-008 with intended owner WM-POL-020 reserved-incomplete and currentOwner none.","expect":"Accepted; the custody gap is explicit and unowned rather than silently absorbed by the case.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-6","closesDefect":"D15"}, {"id":"emleg05-f32","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Service time is defaulted from membership validFrom, or one timestamp stands for filing, service, effect and knowledge.","expect":"Rejected: times are distinct and no time is derived from another.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-13","closesDefect":"D16","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E17"}, {"id":"emleg05-f33","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"Filing, receipt, service, legal effect, finality, publication, enforcement, observation, ingestion and knowledge times are stored separately in RFC 3339 with seconds and explicit offsets.","expect":"Accepted; all times remain distinct and comparable.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-13","closesDefect":"D16"}, {"id":"emleg05-f34","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A dispute or membership assertion is stored with no assertedBy and no assertionCapacity.","expect":"Rejected: every assertion names author and procedural capacity.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-3","closesDefect":"D17","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E18"}, {"id":"emleg05-f35","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"reviewProvenance records the Grok study as visible-response-only with promptState recorded-as-unsent, transportVerification none, hidden reasoning and sources control excluded.","expect":"Accepted; evidentiary weight is limited to the visible text.","violates":"D17","closesDefect":"D17"}, {"id":"emleg05-f36","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"The holds still state that independent Grok review is pending after the review has been supplied and reconciled.","expect":"Rejected: the hold is stale and must record the reconciled, provenance-qualified state.","violates":"D17","closesDefect":"D17","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E19"}, {"id":"emleg05-f37","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Access defaults to allow, or sealed and protective-order material is served through the public view.","expect":"Rejected: access defaults deny and sealed material is excluded from the public view.","violates":"CAND-INV-9","closesDefect":"D18","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E20"}, {"id":"emleg05-f38","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"The statistical view returns a single dispute or carries linkage keys that permit re-identification.","expect":"Rejected: the statistical view forbids single-dispute disclosure and re-identification.","violates":"D18","closesDefect":"D18","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E21"}, {"id":"emleg05-f39","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"A protective order restriction is inherited into the successor appellate proceeding by reference to the originating order rather than by copy.","expect":"Accepted; the restriction survives and remains bound to the act that created it.","violates":"CAND-INV-9","closesDefect":"D18"}, {"id":"emleg05-f40","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A set-aside withdraws access to the prior decision, its findings and its evidence rulings.","expect":"Rejected: access to the set-aside decision and its record is unchanged.","violates":"GROK-INV-6","closesDefect":"D18","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E22"}, {"id":"emleg05-f41","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A claimedAmount and currency are stored on the dispute root.","expect":"Rejected: amounts are proceeding-owned relief sought and are forbidden fields on the root.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-14","closesDefect":"D19","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E23"}, {"id":"emleg05-f42","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A WM-ECO-018 provision is derived from or subscribed to the claim or judgment amount.","expect":"Rejected: no financial-statement draft subscribes to claim amounts and no provision is auto-derived.","violates":"GROK-INV-8","closesDefect":"D19","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E24"}, {"id":"emleg05-f43","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"A provision is remeasured by a separate accounting act with measurement basis, estimate binding, disclosure class, authorityRef and initiatedBy different from authorizedBy.","expect":"Accepted; recognition carries its own authority and never becomes confirmed debt.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-15","closesDefect":"D19"}, {"id":"emleg05-f44","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"The profile asserts canonical completeness, installability or publication readiness.","expect":"Rejected: all bases are publishableCanonical false and three required child specifications are incomplete.","violates":"D20","closesDefect":"D20","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E25"}, {"id":"emleg05-f45","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"Profile carries canonicalPublishable false, newRuntimeId false, newCatalogueId false and publicationHold held; the README states the same hold.","expect":"Accepted; publication is held consistently across artifacts.","violates":"D20","closesDefect":"D20"}, {"id":"emleg05-f46","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"The profile claims appellate, recognition or enforcement coverage, or subtypes appeal into the first-instance profile.","expect":"Rejected: those records are identifier-unassigned gaps outside the profile scope.","violates":"GROK-INV-11","closesDefect":"D21","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E26"}, {"id":"emleg05-f47","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"outOfProfileScope lists Appeal / Review, Enforcement / Recognition Case, Remedy Obligation, filing content, evidence custody, judgment content, remedy execution and finance identity, while an appellate docket may still be recorded as a separate proceeding instance.","expect":"Accepted; Claude and Grok are reconciled without extending coverage.","violates":"GROK-INV-11","closesDefect":"D21"}, {"id":"emleg05-f48","target":"validation-policy.json","kind":"negative","input":"Validation accepts a negative fixture with no expectedCode, no target and no closesDefect.","expect":"Rejected: the policy requires targets, violates mapping, defect closure and unique expected codes.","violates":"D22","closesDefect":"D22","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E27"}, {"id":"emleg05-f49","target":"validation-policy.json","kind":"positive","input":"Policy v2 carries contourId EM-LEG-05, minimumFixtures 76, minimumPositiveFixtures 29, minimumNegativeFixtures 47, minimumInvariants 18, minimumReferences 6 and the forbids-promotion, forbids-root, provenance, access, time and finance requirements.","expect":"Accepted; the remediated artifacts validate deterministically.","violates":"D22","closesDefect":"D22"}, {"id":"emleg05-f50","target":"fixtures.json","kind":"negative","input":"Two fixtures share an id or an expectedCode, or a fixture omits its target.","expect":"Rejected: fixture ids and codes are unique and every fixture names its target.","violates":"D23","closesDefect":"D23","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E28"}, {"id":"emleg05-f51","target":"fixtures.json","kind":"positive","input":"Fixture inventory declares existing 7, added 69, total 76, positive 29, negative 47 and records the brief discrepancy against the stated figure of 4.","expect":"Accepted; counted inventory equals declared inventory.","violates":"D23","closesDefect":"D23"}, {"id":"emleg05-f52","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"An unrebutted party allegation is promoted to an adjudicated finding.","expect":"Rejected: allegation, admission, finding and legal conclusion never merge and absence of rebuttal upgrades nothing.","violates":"CAND-INV-6","closesDefect":"D9","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E29"}, {"id":"emleg05-f53","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"A procedural claim, a WM-KNW-007 party allegation, an adjudicated finding and a legal conclusion with pinned norm and provision version coexist, each naming author and procedural capacity.","expect":"Accepted; four separable assertion classes with distinct owners.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-4","closesDefect":"D17"}, {"id":"emleg05-f54","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A finding is recorded without the burden and standard applied for its issue.","expect":"Rejected: burden and standard are recorded per issue.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-5","closesDefect":"D4","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E30"}, {"id":"emleg05-f55","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"ProceedingEvent is used as the filing master in place of the missing WM-POL-019 specification.","expect":"Rejected: the docket event is case-owned chronology and is not a filing specification.","violates":"GROK-INV-3","closesDefect":"D1","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E31"}, {"id":"emleg05-f56","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"A ProceedingEvent is appended with actor, authority, rule, effect interval and separate filing, receipt, acceptance and service times, and remains case-owned.","expect":"Accepted as an append-only dependent docket component, not a root.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-13","closesDefect":"D16"}, {"id":"emleg05-f57","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Admissibility or permitted use is stored as a property of the evidence item itself.","expect":"Rejected: admissibility and use are proceeding-scoped rulings distinct from evidence identity and custody.","violates":"GROK-INV-10","closesDefect":"D15","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E32"}, {"id":"emleg05-f58","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A procedural claim is re-parented from the receiving proceeding to the dispute root.","expect":"Rejected: claims, counterclaims and defenses are owned by the receiving proceeding.","violates":"CAND-INV-5","closesDefect":"D9","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E33"}, {"id":"emleg05-f59","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A counterclaim is stored as a negation flag on the opposing claim.","expect":"Rejected: counterclaim and defense are distinct responsive assertions with their own proponent and capacity.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-4","closesDefect":"D9","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E34"}, {"id":"emleg05-f60","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"The appellate proceeding takes over, renumbers or replaces the first-instance proceeding identity.","expect":"Rejected: an appeal is a successor proceeding with its own identity and never replaces the first instance.","violates":"GROK-INV-11","closesDefect":"D21","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E35"}, {"id":"emleg05-f61","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Dispute closure cascades deletion or tombstoning to filings, evidence rulings, judgments or successor memberships.","expect":"Rejected: closure is non-destructive with no cascade.","violates":"CAND-INV-12","closesDefect":"D12","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E36"}, {"id":"emleg05-f62","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Party master data is copied into the dispute root instead of referenced through partyCapacityRefs.","expect":"Rejected: party identity is externally mastered and held by reference only.","violates":"CAND-INV-4","closesDefect":"D18","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E37"}, {"id":"emleg05-f63","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A forum organization is created as a dispute-owned child record.","expect":"Rejected: forum organizations remain external and qualify the proceeding, not the matter.","violates":"CAND-INV-1","closesDefect":"D5","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E38"}, {"id":"emleg05-f64","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"A judgment reference is recorded without deciding forum authority, competence basis and decision date.","expect":"Rejected: every decision names forum authority, competence and date.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-8","closesDefect":"D4","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E39"}, {"id":"emleg05-f65","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Finality is asserted at issuance, or correction, recognition and enforcement are collapsed into the issuance event.","expect":"Rejected: issuance, correction, finality, recognition and enforcement remain distinct.","violates":"LOCAL-INV-9","closesDefect":"D16","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E40"}, {"id":"emleg05-f66","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Enforcement or recognition is recorded as a docket event inside the first-instance proceeding.","expect":"Rejected: recognition and enforcement use distinct proceedings and jurisdictions and remain unassigned gaps.","violates":"GROK-INV-11","closesDefect":"D21","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E41"}, {"id":"emleg05-f67","target":"profile-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"Rendering a Case Outcome instantiates a Remedy Obligation record.","expect":"Rejected: a remedy obligation is not implied by the outcome projection and remains an unassigned gap.","violates":"GROK-INV-12","closesDefect":"D10","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E42"}, {"id":"emleg05-f68","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"negative","input":"modelId or registryId is populated, or allocationState is changed away from unassigned.","expect":"Rejected: this contour allocates no catalogue or runtime identifier.","violates":"CAND-INV-1","closesDefect":"D20","expectedCode":"EMLEG05-E43"}, {"id":"emleg05-f69","target":"allocation-candidate.json","kind":"positive","input":"A single-forum matter ends in one final judgment with exactly one proceeding membership and no related proceeding.","expect":"Accepted; the dispute identity remains independent and no later related filing forces renumbering of the original proceeding.","violates":"CAND-INV-2","closesDefect":"D6"} ] ``` # 4. Exact final fixture counts | | Positive | Negative | Total | |---|---|---|---| | Existing in `fixtures.json` | 3 | 4 | **7** | | Added in §3 | 26 | 43 | **69** | | **Final** | **29** | **47** | **76** | - Existing positives: `first-instance-appeal`, `protected-evidence`, `reversal-history`. - Existing negatives: `claim-is-debt`, `appeal-overwrites`, `case-owns-evidence`, `case-number-global-id` — each gains an `expectedCode` (`EMLEG05-E44`…`E47`) under D23. - Added negatives carry `EMLEG05-E01`…`E43`; with the four retrofits the code set is `EMLEG05-E01`…`EMLEG05-E47`, contiguous and unique, one per negative fixture (47 = 47). - Fixture ids: `emleg05-f01`…`emleg05-f69` plus `emleg05-x01`…`emleg05-x07` — 76 unique ids, no collisions. - Defect coverage: every defect D1–D24 is named in at least one `closesDefect`; D24 is closed through the D8-corrected `emleg05-x07` together with `emleg05-f16` and `emleg05-f17`. - `validation-policy.json` thresholds are set to exactly these figures (76 / 29 / 47), so declared and counted inventories match. **Discrepancy recorded:** the audit brief states 4 existing fixtures, but the frozen `fixtures.json` contains 7 cases. The frozen artifact is authoritative, so all counts above are computed on 7. Under the brief's figure the total would read 73; that figure is unsupported by the supplied file and is not used. This mismatch is D23 and is itself remediated by the `inventory` and `briefDiscrepancy` edits. # 5. Freeze decision The boundary decision for EM-LEG-05 is **settled and frozen as supplied**: WM-POL-009 profiled as one forum-qualified proceeding; Dispute / Matter as an identifier-unassigned independent root; claim, counterclaim, defense and ProceedingEvent case-owned; allegations profiled on WM-KNW-007; findings and legal conclusions authority-owned; Case Outcome a projection; Appeal / Review, Enforcement / Recognition Case and Remedy Obligation unassigned gaps; no identifier allocated. Claude and Grok are reconciled, their two apparent tensions resolve into missing contracts rather than conflicting conclusions, and nothing in the supplied evidence proves the decision inconsistent. All 24 defects are artifact-level semantic omissions and mis-specifications, each with a literal field/value edit above that a local script can apply without judgment, new facts, new identifiers, promotion of WM-POL-019/020/021/022, or conversion of any projection or dependent record into a root. The 69 added fixtures plus the 7 remediated existing fixtures give deterministic pass/fail coverage of every defect and every invariant asserted by the local synthesis, the candidate, Claude and Grok, and `validation-policy.json` v2 is tightened to the exact resulting counts and required structures. **This single frozen pass closes the audit. Applying the deterministic remediation requires no rerun, no further review round, and no additional provider.** The remaining open items are explicitly registry and verification matters outside this audit and must stay recorded as holds: the incomplete WM-POL-019/020/021 specifications against WM-POL-009's required CHILD declaration, the WM-POL-022 Sanction / Sentence contradiction, the dangling WM-POL-023 enforcement reference, the WM-KNW-010 edge triple, the unapproved CONTAINS cardinality and lifecycle contracts, the unowned evidence custody and admissibility gap, the three unassigned candidate gaps, and the unverified crosswalks, source pins and jurisdictional profiles. All artifacts remain non-canonical with publication held; no installability, canonical completeness or publication readiness is claimed.