Phase 7 filed anxious/agent-wip/release-policy-derivation as `measured` at
11.94% of audited spend on a 30-day window. The same candidate over 7 days came
back `thin` at 0.00%. Only the date range differed. A human reading either issue
body alone cannot know the other exists, which is rubric.md §4a's failure mode
reached through the plugin's own headline number.
That was caught by a human running a second skeptical review — luck, not a
control. It is now mechanical, in the same register as FR-4.2's overrule-case
gate:
- bin/stability-classify matches each `file` candidate against the most recent
prior snapshot recording it (FR-5.2 identity) and downgrades it to a boundary
question if `measurement_strength` changed or the share crossed the 2% filing
threshold between windows. Movement within a label is a trend, not an
instability; no prior window is `unchecked`, not unstable (FR-2.4).
- The downgrade is a finding against THIS repo, not the target's — the target
did not change, the auditor described it two ways. Carries an `ia-stability`
marker so a re-run comments rather than duplicating.
- bin/ia_store.py factors the store and identity resolution out of
audit-snapshot so both scripts hash signatures identically. A divergence there
would make the gate match nothing and fail open.
Documented as spec FR-4.5 and rubric §5b (shipped verbatim in references/).
Wired into skills/offload-audit as step 4b, before filing-plan; steps 5-6 now
consume its output rather than classified.json.
S4 is retired in its old form — a human triage catching a bad candidate is not a
repeatable test — and re-passed as: the gate catches the real
release-policy-derivation case with no human in the loop. Asserted in
tests/stability.test.sh case (f) against the verbatim two-window Phase 7 output.
Closeskotkan/claude-plugin-inference-arbitrage#11
Suite: 178 assertions, exit 0.
oleks
dcec9cabfb