The branch review approved with notes but overturned two universal claims I had
already committed to the spec. Both overturns were independently reproduced
before acting on them, and both were correct.
FR-1 (important): assertion 5's source scan required a NAMED receiver, but Go
permits omitting an unused one, and a shadowing body is exactly the case that
often needs none. Under func (*ContentService) CoverURL(...) the old pattern
matched nothing, so build, vet and all seven assertions stayed green while the
shadow was effective. The regex literal in §5-T1.5 is corrected to the optional
group now in the code, and the claim that assertion 5 is the only mechanical way
to catch shadowing is scoped: it was false before the fix, and after it the
assertion's reach is wider than the original text said, because NumMethod()
exposes only exported names — so an unexported root method is also caught by the
source scan alone.
FR-5: my adjudication of F4 said the two layers 'cover completely'. That is a
universal claim and an orphan private helper on the wrong line is its
counterexample (assertion 2 filters on IsExported, and Go does not report unused
methods). The wording is narrowed to what the layers actually cover, with the
reason the verdict still holds: the third layer can only ever produce dead code.
Both are recorded as instances of the same defect I keep committing — stating a
conclusion before establishing its range. §8 rule 5 already required universal
claims to have universal-range evidence; these were two places I did not follow
my own rule.
The lesson is written into the spec rather than only the ledger: when claiming a
guard is the only thing that catches a failure mode, enumerate the forms first
(named/unnamed receiver, value/pointer, exported/unexported), or the claim
becomes the next reviewer's counterexample.
XingfenD
33c2d8d4b8