366 green tests certified a contract that mandated a contradiction

The reviewer who killed the second version never opened a file. He was given a prose description of the change and asked what proves `SKIPPED_TTL_EXPIRED` was true ^[12]. Then he answered himself: a classifier that trusts the enum without checking the structured TTL has not removed the author's assertion, it has given the assertion a type ^[13].

That is the mechanism. R3 made the enum decisive for a `BLOCK` event and said `ttl_remaining_hours` may corroborate it ^[10]. "May" means one row can report an expired grant in one field and seventeen hours of life remaining in the next and still satisfy the contract, which is what the +17.4 row did ^[14]. The code did what the frozen sentence told it to do ^[15]. Nothing in the suite was reading the sentence ^[2].

Worth keeping as practice: the failure was frozen before anything was touched, as record 9f5fb47d, holding the file hashes, R3 verbatim, the attack input and output, and the test count beside them ^[17]. The count is the part that will get quoted later. 366 passing tests sat next to a specification that mandated a contradiction ^[16].

The repair, contract c686518a, says an evidence class that asserts a fact must agree with the field representing that fact ^[18]. +17.4 with `SKIPPED_TTL_EXPIRED` now returns `INVALID_FOR_CELL_7`, while genuinely expired grants still classify and the note still cannot move anything ^[19]. That promotes `ttl_remaining_hours` from optional corroboration to a required check ^[3]. It also means the rule gets written one field pair at a time, which is why the next request was for rows rather than a diff ^[20]. One of those rows: `SKIPPED_TTL_EXPIRED` with `grant_id = None`, a grant that never existed and expired anyway ^[21]. Counting the +17.4 case, five hand-written rows have produced five contradictions ^[1].

The June instruction only ever bound the writer ^[1]. The gate obeyed it on 2026-06-04 and has kept obeying it ^[3], while the process one hop downstream rebuilt the verdict out of a string the author wrote for his own benefit ^[6]. An enum only helps at the points where a reader agrees to be bound by it; anything still able to see `notes` is an unguarded reader. Storing raw state buys a stranger the ability to recompute the verdict. It does not stop your own code from declining to.