Skip to content

[SUPERSEDED BY #724] test(epoch002): characterize materialization repository event gates - #723

Closed
ndrorchestration wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
test/epoch002-materialization-event-gates-2026-09-16
Closed

ndrorchestration wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
test/epoch002-materialization-event-gates-2026-09-16

Conversation

@ndrorchestration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Purpose

Add direct characterization coverage for the already-implemented Track A Epoch 002 repository materialization event gates identified during the post-#718 audit.

This is test-only coverage hardening. It does not change the materializer, validator, schemas, workflows, evidence, custody, authorization, scientific state, or result semantics.

Exact lineage

  • protected signed/verified base: cc557ec290b0054929d35156c86397da809581be
  • exact head: cf8b3ee0e15ee7e4f6c612fd4fdb8b7ab95d8441
  • branch: test/epoch002-materialization-event-gates-2026-09-16
  • effective delta: exactly one existing focused test file

Changed path:

tests/test_track_a_epoch_002_materialization_operator_provenance.py

Audit finding addressed

The accepted production validator already enforces repository-event semantics for:

  • one-parent / one-file creation-only materialization evidence admission;
  • rejection of evidence replay over a pre-existing canonical path;
  • one-parent / one-file creation-only MATERIALIZATION_RECEIPT creation;
  • direct receipt succession from the evidence-admission commit;
  • rejection of an intervening commit between evidence admission and receipt;
  • rejection of receipt replay over a pre-existing canonical receipt.

Prior tests strongly covered object/schema/provenance drift and Stage-2 atomic bundle behavior, but did not directly invoke the repository event-gate functions themselves.

The added tests characterize both accepted and adversarial event shapes. Because the production behavior already exists, this lane does not manufacture a RED production defect; if any characterization fails, treat it as evidence of an actual mismatch and stop for diagnosis rather than changing semantics to satisfy the test.

Non-effects

No real materialization occurs. No empirical or protected artifact is read. No private key, passphrase, mapping, materialization evidence instance, repository receipt, analysis authorization, or result is created.

State remains:

MATERIALIZATION = NOT_ESTABLISHED
PRIMARY_ANALYSIS = NOT_AUTHORIZED / NOT RUN
SCIENTIFIC_N_INCREMENT = 0
CANONICAL_DGAF_EFFICACY = NOT_ESTABLISHED
HIGH_ASSURANCE = PRE-FREEZE / FAIL-CLOSED / NOT AUTHORIZED / N=0

Keep DRAFT until fresh exact-head focused and repository-wide validation establishes that the characterization matches the accepted validator without requiring a production change.

@vercel

vercel Bot commented Sep 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Actions Updated
dynamicgovernanceagenticformation Ready Ready Preview Sep 16, 2026 6:07am UTC

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Superseded by #724 after accepted #721 advanced protected main to 3f39c818301b85fd57dcda273c97d7f57d2e9c65.

#723 is retained as useful validation provenance: its initial Python failure isolated a Black-only formatting defect; formatting-corrected head 816d7b830cb0ee428d73197b15b4fd1fccdecd4b subsequently passed fresh Python and the dedicated Track A Epoch 002 Materialization Receipt workflow, with no production-code change. But #723 is one commit behind current protected main, so none of that acceptance evidence transfers.

#724 reconstructs the exact formatting-corrected test blob directly on current protected main as one commit / one file and must earn fresh exact-head validation from scratch. No scientific or authorization state changes.

@ndrorchestration ndrorchestration changed the title test(epoch002): characterize materialization repository event gates [SUPERSEDED BY #724] test(epoch002): characterize materialization repository event gates Sep 16, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant