The example set satisfied §11's both-shapes clause only by accident. Both
values of pdp_digest and pdp_path appeared, but they appeared in perfect
correlation with validity: claim.valid carried a digest with pdp_path true,
claim.revoked carried null with pdp_path false, and nothing else existed.
Two independent dimensions presented as one. A reader could reasonably conclude
that pdp_digest is null because the claim is revoked, or that pdp_path tracks
validity. Both are false, and the example set is what would have taught them --
the failure the both-shapes clause exists to catch, which this repo proposed and
then shipped a case of.
The missing shape is the consequential one: a claim that is entirely valid --
valid_now true, reason_code ok, not consumed -- and carries no PDP binding. It
is usable for a consumer comparing the native binding.digest and unusable on the
GH-DEC-2026-003 path, where a PEP MUST refuse it. valid_now true is not
permission to proceed on that lane. A consumer writing that refusal previously
had no published shape to test against and would have had to invent a fixture,
which is the drift §12 names.
examples/claim.valid.no-pdp.json publishes it. The tests now assert the
decorrelation rather than mere presence: one requires a valid claim with no PDP
binding to exist, the other requires valid claims to cover both pdp_path
declarations. Verified both fail when the new example is removed, so they hold
the property rather than restating today's file list. 121 tests pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PM5HnEAhokxdfcPqBNpT7D
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 715850@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: eb557e93-7cb1-45d0-9e57-7d15b3edc60e
tegwick
d5d1e41035