XingfenD
51bed55704
The P15-B branch review returned "needs fixing before merge" on a critical gap in the guard layer. The code side is with a second fix-forward; this commit closes the document side, which is the controller's. F-FINAL-4 - the leg-8 cell carried a one-line regex that the controller wrote into the spec during re-pin. It was worse than the version in the adjudication it copied: 4 of 7 attribute forms fail rather than 2, because markdown escaping turned the alternation bar into a literal bar and `'[^']*'` was mistyped as `'[^'*]`. The controller had checked that every table row has the same number of pipes as the header, but never checked that the escaped code was still the code it came from. The cell now describes the implemented approach (extract every style attribute value in all three quoting forms, strip quotes, test each for color:) and deliberately carries no regex literal, with the reason stated: an escaped bar inside a table cell is a literal character in the regex. Read the code entity for the pattern. §6-1 - leg 9 was never re-pinned: the spec still said "length > 500" while the code says 4000 plus three structural preconditions. Corrected, with the unit spelled out (source characters 4423, not the built artifact's 7056/7588). §6-2 - "the only discriminating grid" survived re-pin in four places; the review measured two legs reddening on a real decision-order defect. Narrowed to "the only discriminating grid on the child-side direct-visit path" here and in the plan. The two occurrences in code comments belong to the fix-forward. §6-3/§6-4/§6-5 - the §1.2 count now states which tree it came from (base 66, HEAD 67, the extra one being this batch's own note text quoting the figure); the §4 boundary table lists the e2e spec it had omitted; D-G says "form aligns" rather than "aligns verbatim", since the script bodies differ by design (the main app has one more level, 16 token-level differences). F-FINAL-1 - two claims already committed are corrected rather than deleted. The §3.1(a) annotation and the §7 risk row both rested on "maskSourceComments() neutralises the trap comment, so the guard does not depend on the implementer's wording discipline". That is true for the file in question, but only because the trap comment happens to use `//`: the function's HTML-comment branch compared a 2-character slice against a 4-character literal and never ran. Merely rewording a comment reddened up to four legs while the e2e suite stayed green. §8 gains the census case for discipline 15 (an unlanded census script is why the 48-versus-47 discrepancy is still untraceable), plus disciplines 16 and 17: every evidence file a report cites must be ls-checked before delivery, and executable details in a spec must be grepped from the code entity or recomputed, never hand-written. Discipline 17 records this batch's three instances, one of them a contrast ratio cited twice by two documents and recomputed by nobody (3.0269; the actual value is 2.5519, which no grey background produces). Post-write checks: 25/25 assertions, 11 table blocks with 0 column anomalies, 16 code fences paired, 25 headings with no duplicates, copyable-block cleanliness scanned across 8 blocks.