12 — Zero-Hardcode Adversarial Review (SUPERTRACK L)

Attempt to break the design. Each probe: CLEAN / DISGUISED_HARDCODE_RISK / HARD_FAIL.

Probe	Finding	Class
Is any policy decision embedded in function code?	Engines have fixed signatures, execute typed sealed manifest rows, "no metadata-ID CASE/list." No tier/gate/capability name branches. (Cannot inspect bodies — they don't exist yet; design-level CLEAN.)	CLEAN (design)
Is any gate set mutable at runtime?	Denominator = sealed ACTIVE READINESS_GATE manifest; owner-only; reduce only via Q_CRITICAL_3 + hash/epoch.	CLEAN
Is any count fixed without sealed manifest?	expected_count lives in the sealed manifest envelope (payload SHA-256); 14 gates / 14 vectors are seed manifest rows, not literals in functions.	CLEAN
Is any manifest editable by Directus?	Design: owner-only, Directus no DML/DDL. Live: Directus still owns precursor tables (operator-gated cutover).	CLEAN (design) / operator-gated
Is any identity string-spoofable?	Principals = LOGIN session_user classes via controlled manifest; no SET ROLE/proxy/shared role. Not free-text.	CLEAN
Is any capability self-attested?	Capability = controlled-VERIFIER measurements (pages/resumed-set/ms/bytes); lifecycle cannot assert PASS; fake/existence/free-text fail.	CLEAN
Is any hash ambiguous?	Method CLEAN (JSONB/ordered/domain-sep/no-MD5/no-delimiter); but per-contract key-maps not published → cannot fully verify input-completeness.	DISGUISED_HARDCODE_RISK (low) — unverifiable inputs
Is any dependency proof regex/manual?	Native catalog + sealed analyzer with source-hash drift-invalidation; regex diagnostic-only; unknown fails.	CLEAN
Is any routed-later item not blocking now?	Owner cutover/REVOKE routed to operator FIX7b, but readiness stays BLOCKED now (cutover-complete + Directus-no-write are gates); live confirms blocked (signoff=0, cap=0).	CLEAN
Are thresholds fixed without manifest provenance + quorum?	Capability thresholds (1M/600000ms/1GiB/freshness) are measurement-manifest rows under activation quorum (per doc 02 measurement child + activation).	CLEAN (asserted; schema not shown → low risk)
Bypass vectors manually curated vs exact-set sealed?	14 vectors are a sealed BYPASS_VECTOR manifest seed set, exact-set enforced; but the 14 are described by coverage, not individually enumerated in the KB.	DISGUISED_HARDCODE_RISK (low) — enumerate to confirm

Net

No HARD_FAIL. The design is structurally zero-hardcode: sealed/hashed/versioned/owner-controlled manifests; machine-enforced typed rules (not prose); thresholds with manifest provenance + quorum; sealed denominator; controlled identities; analyzer source-hash-bound; no routed-later-without-block. Two low DISGUISED_HARDCODE_RISK items, both = unverifiable because the byte-level artifact is not published (hash key-maps; explicit 14-vector enumeration), not because hardcode was found.

Verdict: ZERO_HARDCODE_PASS (design level), with 2 low risks pending artifact publication

The design passes zero-hardcode adversarially. The two low risks are closed by the same correction as the final verdict: publish the hash key-maps and the explicit bypass-vector enumeration so "exact-set sealed" is reviewable rather than asserted.