fix(evidence): EVID-136 declared a review status where a direction belongs

.forgeplan/evidence/EVID-136-code-review-of-prd-079-blog-scaffold-concerns.md

@@ -21,7 +21,18 @@ One-line justification: Build passes and all RFC-011 invariants hold structurall
 
 ## Structured Fields
 
-verdict: concerns
+verdict: weakens
+
+<!-- Was `concerns` until 2026-09-07. That is a review STATUS, not an evidence
+     DIRECTION, and the scorer had no such value — it silently resolved to
+     `supports` and scored 1.0, so a review saying "three issues require coder
+     attention before merge" was counted as full confirmation of the thing it
+     objected to. PRD-086 FR-008 closed that fall-through; this pack is the one
+     artifact in the graph it exposed.
+
+     `weakens` is the honest reading: the review does not refute PRD-079, it
+     lowers confidence in the state reviewed. The three HIGH findings below are
+     the substance of that. -->
 congruence_level: 3
 evidence_type: audit
 
@@ -84,3 +95,4 @@ evidence_type: audit
 
 
 
+

.forgeplan/notes/NOTE-052-verdict-is-a-direction-not-a-review-status.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+depth: tactical
+id: NOTE-052
+kind: note
+links:
+- target: PRD-086
+  relation: informs
+status: draft
+title: 'verdict: is a direction, not a review status'
+---
+
+---
+assigned_number: 52
+created: 2026-09-07
+predicted_number: 52
+slug: note-verdict-is-a-direction-not-a-review-status
+updated: 2026-09-07
+---
+
+# `verdict:` is a direction, not a review status
+
+## What happened
+
+`EVID-136` — a code review of the blog scaffold — declared `verdict: concerns`.
+There is no such value. The scorer accepted three: `supports`, `weakens`,
+`refutes`.
+
+Until PRD-086 FR-008 the unrecognised value fell through to `supports` and
+scored **1.0**, so a review whose own summary read *"three issues require coder
+attention before merge"* counted as full confirmation of the thing it objected
+to. `PRD-079` and `RFC-011` carried that 1.0 for three weeks.
+
+FR-008 made the fall-through fail closed, which is what surfaced it. Fixed by
+setting `weakens`: the review does not refute the PRD, it lowers confidence in
+the state reviewed. Scores now read 0.30 / 0.30 / 0.20 — the first honest
+numbers those three artifacts have had.
+
+## The trap worth naming
+
+`CONCERNS` is a real word in this project: it is one of the three verdicts a
+Profile-B reviewer returns (`PASS` / `CONCERNS` / `BLOCKER`). The author wrote
+their review status into a field that wants something else, and both vocabularies
+are correct in their own place.
+
+The pack's `## Verdict` heading said `CONCERNS` too, which is right — that is
+prose about the review. The structured field beneath it is a different question:
+**which way does this evidence push the claim.** A review can be CONCERNS and
+still be `weakens`; it could equally be CONCERNS and `supports` if the concerns
+are cosmetic.
+
+Rule of thumb when writing an EvidencePack:
+
+- `supports` — the claim is more likely true because of this
+- `weakens` — less likely, or true only under narrower conditions
+- `refutes` — the claim as stated is wrong
+
+Review verdicts, test outcomes and CI statuses belong in the prose, not in this
+field.
+
+## Scale
+
+One pack in 173. The discipline holds — which is exactly why nobody noticed the
+one that did not, and why the gate had to exist rather than the convention.
+
+Related: PRD-086 FR-008, PROB-101.
+
+

.forgeplan/prds/PRD-086-the-trust-layer-reports-values-it-never-computed.md

@@ -141,3 +141,4 @@ GitHub: #325, #392, #393, #330.
 
 
 
+