RS-TKT-1-PATCH1 · 06 — Count-Based Self-Validation Report

Lane: RS-TKT-1 — Phase 1 TKT Base Design Package · PATCH1 (design-only / proof-doc-only) Date: 2026-06-22 Gate: REGISTRATION_HOLD · REGISTRATION_CAN_PROCEED = NO · 0 runtime mutations Authority: NON_AUTHORITY · may_gate=false · decision_effect=NONE Closes: Codex §9 / §15.6 — re-run 18/19 adversarially with pasted counts; detect duplicate/missing outcomes, validate status enums, fail on alternative codes. This is count-based, not prose-based.

This report computes the macro §2.3 zero-defect counts over the canonical artifacts (patch1/01–05). The whole package is READY only if every count is zero.

---

1. Method (count-based, Codex-style)

1. I did not trust the old fixture matrix (17) or its prose completeness claim.
2. I located actual governed files (Codex report + phase1-design 02/03/04/05/06/07/08/12/16/17/18/19; PATCH2 acceptance) via agent-data KB.
3. I fresh-reconstructed the oracle in patch1/01 (separated status/outcome; one code per fixture; one namespace per fixture; layer split).
4. I built coverage (patch1/02), contract completeness (patch1/03), traceability (patch1/04), and dry-run readiness (patch1/05) as numeric ledgers.
5. I now COUNT defects across those artifacts. Counts, not adjectives, decide the verdict.

2. Zero-defect counts (what · where · result)

count	what was counted	where counted	result
invalid_status_values	expected_check_status cells ∉ {PASS,FAIL,HOLD,N/A}	patch1/01 §4 (all fixture rows)	0
missing_outcome_codes	fixtures with blank canonical_outcome_code	patch1/01 §4	0
dual_outcome_codes	fixtures with >1 code (A / B, parenthetical alt)	patch1/01 §4 (BAD-L3-001, BAD-NVSZ-002 split)	0
prose_only_outcome_codes	fixtures whose code is prose/config-error not a registry code	patch1/01 §4.7 (BAD-RS-001/PROP-001/PROP-002 now coded)	0
uncovered_bricks	required bricks with no pos or no neg	patch1/02 §1/§5 (14/14 covered)	0
missing_positive_controls	bricks lacking a positive control	patch1/02 §4/§5	0
missing_negative_fixtures	bricks lacking a negative fixture	patch1/02 §1/§5	0
missing_mandatory_contract_fields	(brick,field) checks with present=NO	patch1/03 §2/§4 (280/280)	0
authority_effect_not_none	bricks/fixtures with authority_effect ≠ NONE	patch1/01 §1.1 R5, 03 §3, 04	0
registration_effect_not_none	bricks/fixtures with registration_effect ≠ NONE	patch1/01 §1.1 R5, 03 §3, 04	0
traceability_missing_rows	requirement rows with no mapping	patch1/04 §4	0
compatibility_hold_rows	rows with compatible=HOLD	patch1/04 §4	0
compatibility_no_rows	rows with compatible=NO	patch1/04 §4	0
dry_run_required_inputs_unclassified	dry-run inputs lacking a class	patch1/05 §5	0
dry_run_required_permissions_unclassified	dry-run permissions lacking a class	patch1/05 §5	0
dry_run_owner_decisions_unclassified	dry-run owner decisions lacking a class	patch1/05 §5	0
dry_run_phase2_blockers_other_than_owner_authorization	non-Owner Phase-2 blockers	patch1/05 §4/§5	0
runtime_drift_findings	any executable/runtime smuggled into this PATCH	this PATCH (all docs design-only; §4)	0
authority_overclaim_findings	any seal/gate/registration/authority claim	this PATCH (effects constant NONE; §4)	0
fail_closed_unresolved_findings	any invalid input that could emit PASS-like grant	§3 adversarial probes	0

If any count above were nonzero, this PATCH would NOT report READY (it would carry the matching HOLD/REJECT verdict from patch1/07 §).

3. Adversarial probes (each maps to a canonical fixture + outcome; safe = YES required)

probe	canonical_fixture_id	expected_check_status	canonical_outcome_code	actual design outcome	safe
bare PASS + exit 3	BAD-FC-001	FAIL	FAIL_UNSTRUCTURED_FORBIDDEN_TOKEN	FAIL closed; no grant	YES
bare SEMANTIC_TEXT_AS_CODE_PASS + exit 3	BAD-FC-006	FAIL	FAIL_UNSTRUCTURED_FORBIDDEN_TOKEN	FAIL closed	YES
REGISTRATION_CAN_PROCEED = YES + exit 3	BAD-FC-007	FAIL	FAIL_UNSTRUCTURED_FORBIDDEN_TOKEN	FAIL closed	YES
cert/seal/digest artifact + exit 3	BAD-FC-002	FAIL	FAIL_FORBIDDEN_AUTHORITY_ARTIFACT	FAIL closed	YES
invalid input exits 0	BAD-FC-004	FAIL	FAIL_INVALID_EXIT_ZERO	FAIL closed	YES
missing scan surface	BAD-FC-008	HOLD	HOLD_OUTPUT_SURFACE_UNAVAILABLE	HOLD, never PASS	YES
clean structured rejection (contains SEAL_REJECTED)	BAD-FC-003	PASS	SAFE_REJECT	safe-reject; NOT a grant; effects NONE	YES
L0 HOLD treated as PASS	BAD-PROP-001	FAIL	FAIL_HOLD_TREATED_AS_PASS	aggregate HOLD (06 row 2), never PASS	YES
N/A upgrades aggregate	BAD-PROP-002	FAIL	FAIL_NA_UPGRADES_AGGREGATE	aggregate unchanged; no aggregate N/A	YES
RS5B draft promoted generic	BAD-RS-001	FAIL	FAIL_RS5B_DRAFT_PROMOTED	stays SELF_REPORTED_DRAFT	YES
L3 cross-brick read (design)	BAD-L3-001	FAIL	REJECT_MEGA_SYSTEM_DRIFT	design rejected	YES
L3 cross-brick read (runtime)	BAD-L3-002	FAIL	FAIL_L3_CROSS_BRICK_INTERNAL_READ	runtime FAIL	YES
raw log in vector KB	BAD-NVSZ-001	FAIL	ESCROW_E5	FAIL closed	YES
invented NVSZ root (escrow)	BAD-NVSZ-002	FAIL	ESCROW_E9	FAIL closed	YES
invented root at root-provisioning	BAD-NVSZ-003	FAIL	ROOT_E4 (Phase 3)	FAIL closed, deferred	YES
pseudo-CLI mistaken as executable CLI	(19 §1 #1 / 11 §2)	N/A	— (paper-only assertion)	pseudo> + placeholders; not runnable	YES
future layout mistaken as created folders	(19 §1 #2 / 09 §1)	N/A	— (paper-only assertion)	drawing only; no folder created	YES
Phase 2 opened automatically	(19 §1 #7 / 21)	N/A	— (governance assertion)	Owner-only; stops at HOLD_NO_EXEC_SURFACE	YES

safe = NO count = 0. No invalid input yields a PASS/digest/seal/cert-like output or any authority/registration effect.
Note: BAD-FC-003 has expected_check_status = PASS but its outcome is SAFE_REJECT (a clean rejection), NOT a grant token,
artifact, or seal; authority_effect/registration_effect remain NONE. PASS-of-a-safe-reject ≠ authority PASS.

4. Distinction checks (engineering vs authority; design vs runtime; readiness vs execution)

[x] engineering/design PASS ≠ authority PASS        — effects constant NONE (01 §1.1 R5; 03 §3; 04 per-row).
[x] dry-run readiness ≠ dry-run execution           — patch1/05 §1; nothing executed; Owner authorization still required.
[x] construction blueprint ≠ construction           — 19 §5; 09–15 paper-only; this PATCH adds no code.
[x] no HOLD becomes PASS                             — 06 §1/§8; BAD-PROP-001 FAILs.
[x] no N/A upgrades aggregate                        — 06 §3/§5; BAD-PROP-002 FAILs; aggregate has no N/A value.
[x] REGISTRATION_HOLD remains active                 — every file header.
[x] REGISTRATION_CAN_PROCEED = NO remains active     — every file header.

5. Self-validation verdict

All twenty zero-defect counts = 0. All adversarial probes safe = YES. All distinction checks hold.
This is an ENGINEERING/DESIGN + PROOF self-check ONLY. It is NOT a Codex PASS, authority PASS, implementation PASS,
runtime PASS, production PASS, semantic Text-as-Code PASS, IU traceability PASS, or release bundle PASS.
It does NOT open Phase 2 and does NOT run dry-run. Independent Codex re-review still required.
RESULT: count-based self-validation PASS (engineering/design + proof only).