Here is what actually happens when PlannerCritic's critic flags a problem. The critic returns a finding with a severity label. The system checks that finding's family against a frozenset holding `unsafe_sequencing`, `weak_rollback`, `unverified_dependencies` and `feasibility` [4]. If the family is outside the set, a `blocker` is downgraded to a warning [5]. The frozenset is the safety policy. The model's severity field is a suggestion box [5].
That is good engineering, and the sweep counts read like it working [11]. Add the three structural families and you get 497 blockers over 183 goals, about 2.7 per goal [19]. For that number to tell you anything about your own planner, you would need his goal corpus, his plan schema and his gate code at v0.2.2 [10]. It is a property of that sweep, not a property of plans.
The asymmetry is in the instrumentation. The critic is the component under suspicion, so it gets meters: `label_flip_rate`, `evidence_drift_rate` [14]. The gates are the component being trusted, so they got build-time tests and no runtime monitoring [16]. The safety contract lives in the gates [2]. So the contract sits in the one layer with no live signal [14].
A reader named Artjoms Stukans put the consequence in the comments: "If one blocker class stops firing after some refactor, your numbers only look better. 226 becomes 40 and that reads like plans got safer" [12]. That is a drop of 186, an 82 percent reduction [20], and it is entirely welcome news as long as you assume the gate ran.
The second system already had the answer to that shape of question. The convergence score is an aggregate, and it deliberately measures movement rather than agreement, so two models that agree without engaging score low [9]. The capitulation detector does not read the aggregate at all. It reads the transcript and asks whether one side conceded everything in round one without a single rebuttal [15]. That is a check on the record of the process rather than on its summary statistic, and it is the part of this work I would steal first.
Ghosal's port back into PlannerCritic is the Gate Canary: ten fixture pairs, one per gate class, each with a known-good plan [17]. The source text stops mid-sentence there, so the other half of each pair is a guess I am not going to make.
The narrower lesson is the one worth keeping. Both projects bet that the right structure produces reliability, and by the author's own account the structure held [18]. Structure decides which component is allowed to be wrong. It does not produce evidence that the trusted component is still doing its job [14][16]. If you concentrate a contract in one layer, the probe has to sit in that layer too, and it has to fail loudly when the layer goes quiet.
