T08: the classifier, measured and attacked

False Adaptation Rate = 0/7 across the labelled catalogue and the three E-003
attacks. 11 of 12 mechanical mutations absorbed without a human, so the safety
result is not bought by escalating everything.

- classification.py: total function over three signals, rule order chosen so
  every rule that could excuse a regression sits after the rule that reports
  one. SAFE_TO_ACCEPT is a two-element closed set, asserted.
- CompositeDriver plus scenarios/full_journey.py: one asset crossing both
  surfaces, so UI mutations are visible as surface differences while the
  claims they do not touch stay green.
- E-003: surface substitution (new M23), concurrent mechanical+defect,
  evidence starvation, provenance laundering. All held.

F-0006 (CONCEPT_DRIFT, resolved): the T02 design listed SEMANTIC_CHANGE as an
outcome the table could produce. It cannot - M12 and M19 are behaviourally
identical, as the lab has asserted since T05. PRODUCT_DEFECT and
SEMANTIC_CHANGE collapse into one escalating outcome, BEHAVIOUR_CHANGED, and
the distinction becomes a human adjudication. INTENT_CHANGED survives but is
detected by the claim fingerprint moving, not inferred from behaviour.

Two classifier defects found and fixed rather than reported: claims downstream
of a failed realization now yield INCONCLUSIVE rather than FAIL (a false
accusation is the mirror image of a false adaptation), and the browser driver
records a page signature so surface change is detectable when the interaction
path is unchanged.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1629012@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 78d4fb13-8a1e-474b-87a3-9b9261c49a39

research/hypotheses/H-004-independent-judgment.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 id: H-004
 title: Independent Judgment
-status: PROPOSED
+status: EXPERIMENTING
 created: "2026-08-22"
 experiments: [E-001, E-003]
 concepts: [C-oracle-independence, C-intent-provenance]
@@ -41,6 +41,41 @@ The most plausible route to falsification is not a misclassification but
 via another surface and scoring as a successful recovery. D-05 exists to close
 that route; E-003 exists to attack it deliberately.
 
+## Result (TD-WP-0002-T08)
+
+**False Adaptation Rate = 0/7.** No `DEFECT`-labelled mutation was classified as
+safe to accept, including the three deliberate attacks in E-003.
+
+| Ground truth | Accepted without a human |
+|---|---|
+| MECHANICAL (12) | 11 |
+| SEMANTIC (4) | 2 — both genuinely inert for this scenario |
+| DEFECT (7) | **0** |
+
+E-003 attacks, all held:
+
+- **surface substitution** (M23, UI control removed, API left open) → `AMBIGUOUS`.
+  The driver did not route around; discovery failed loudly.
+- **concurrent mechanical + defect** (M01+M15, M02+M17, M21+M20) →
+  `BEHAVIOUR_CHANGED`, with the reason explicitly noting that the coincident
+  surface change does not excuse it.
+- **evidence starvation** → `AMBIGUOUS`, never a pass.
+- **provenance laundering** → rejected at authoring, and caught in the record.
+
+Note what this does and does not establish. FAR = 0 follows largely from
+*architecture* — claims are run inputs with no adaptation write path (D-02), and
+`SAFE_TO_ACCEPT` is a two-element closed set. The experiment confirms the
+architecture behaves as designed over 23 mutations; it does not establish that
+the architecture is correct for mutations nobody thought of. That distinction
+should survive into any external claim.
+
+The other side of the trade is asserted too: a classifier that escalated
+everything would score a perfect FAR and be useless.
+`test_mechanical_changes_are_mostly_absorbed` pins 11 of 12.
+
 ## Status log
 
 - 2026-08-22 `PROPOSED`. No evidence.
+- 2026-08-22 `EXPERIMENTING`. FAR 0/7 over the labelled set plus E-003 attacks.
+  Not promoted to SUPPORTED: 23 hand-written mutations is a small, self-chosen
+  sample.