RS-TKT-1 (Phase 1) · 19 — Codex-Style Self-Validation of Construction Blueprint

Lane: RS-TKT-1 — Phase 1 TKT Base Design Package (design-only) Date: 2026-06-22 Gate: REGISTRATION_HOLD · REGISTRATION_CAN_PROCEED = NO · 0 runtime mutations Authority: NON_AUTHORITY · may_gate=false · decision_effect=NONE

Adversarial attack on the construction blueprint (09–15). The blueprint describes how a tool could be built; the attack asks whether any part of it could be mistaken for, or smuggle, actual construction.

---

1. The attack questions (each: question · evidence · answer · fix applied)

#	Attack question	Evidence file	Answer	Fix / guard
1	Can the pseudo-CLI be mistaken as a runnable CLI?	11 §2	No	Written as pseudo> lines with <…> placeholders; §1 states "no CLI is created"; header NON_EXECUTABLE.
2	Can the future layout be mistaken as created folders?	09 §1	No	§1 "hard reading rule": the tree is a drawing; "no folder named tkt_base/ exists or is created."
3	Can a future module boundary smuggle runtime execution?	10 §1/§3	No	Every module lists "forbidden dependency: no SUT runtime"; packet_reconstructor ⇒ HOLD_RUNTIME_SURFACE_REQUIRED.
4	Can a future report schema imply authority?	13 §4	No	authority_effect/registration_effect constant NONE; aggregate ∈ {PASS,FAIL,HOLD}; report is advisory.
5	Can the future NVSZ layout imply root designation?	14 §5	No	<NON_VECTOR_ROOT> is a placeholder; §3 "no root is designated"; owner/operator-only, Phase 3.
6	Can the fixture oracle be incomplete?	12 §3	No	"≥1 positive + ≥1 negative per brick"; silent caps forbidden; authoritative matrix is 17.
7	Can Phase 2 be opened automatically?	11 §5, 15 §2, 21	No	Phase 2 is read/report-only, Owner-authorized, stops at HOLD_NO_EXEC_SURFACE; 21 is a checklist, not authorization.

2. Code-block safety audit (the "copy-run as implementation" risk)

Scanned all fenced blocks in 09–15. Findings:
- No ```python / ```bash / ```sh fenced block anywhere. All blocks are ```text or ```json (inert data shapes).
- The only command-like lines are 11 §2 pseudo-commands, prefixed "pseudo>" with <placeholder> operands — not copy-runnable.
- The NVSZ tree (14) and package tree (09) are drawings with <ALL_CAPS_PLACEHOLDER> roots — not real paths.
- result.json/result.md schemas (13) are shapes with placeholder values — not generated artifacts.
⇒ No executable code block that could be copy-run as implementation. PASS.

3. Header-compliance audit

Every construction-blueprint file (09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) carries the four-line header:
  NON_EXECUTABLE_DESIGN_EXAMPLE / FUTURE_CONSTRUCTION_BLUEPRINT_ONLY / NOT_IMPLEMENTED / NOT_AUTHORIZED_FOR_RUNTIME.
Verified present at the top of each. PASS.

4. Strengthening applied during this self-validation

- 09 §1 hard reading rule added so the layout cannot be read as created folders.
- 11 §2 pseudo-commands use a "pseudo>" prefix + placeholders so they cannot be pasted into a shell.
- 14 keeps <NON_VECTOR_ROOT> as a placeholder constant with an explicit "no root designated" statement.
- 15 §6 states the construction-vs-construction-blueprint wall and the no-executable-code-block rule explicitly.
No attack question yielded "yes"; no further weakening found.

5. Self-validation verdict (construction blueprint)

The construction blueprint is a PAPER blueprint. It builds nothing, creates no folder/file/artifact, runs nothing, and authorizes no phase.
No pseudo-interface is copy-runnable; no schema implies authority; no layout implies a designated root; Phase 2 cannot open automatically.
This is an ENGINEERING/DESIGN self-check only — not a Codex/authority/implementation/runtime/production PASS; REGISTRATION_HOLD remains active.
RESULT: construction-blueprint self-validation PASS (paper-only; construction blueprint ≠ construction).