From f8aad38dd5d33bfe0cb6a0a38a4c921ffba110dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Willner Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:56:25 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] docs: define LLM Errata validation program --- INDEPENDENT_IMPLEMENTATION.md | 39 ++++++ REVIEW_REQUEST.md | 47 ++++++++ docs/PUBLICATION_STRATEGY.md | 72 +++++++++++ ...6-08-12-semantic-probes-and-publication.md | 95 +++++++++++++++ .../2026-08-12-semantic-probes-design.md | 92 ++++++++++++++ ...2-validation-publication-program-design.md | 113 ++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 458 insertions(+) create mode 100644 INDEPENDENT_IMPLEMENTATION.md create mode 100644 REVIEW_REQUEST.md create mode 100644 docs/PUBLICATION_STRATEGY.md create mode 100644 docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-and-publication.md create mode 100644 docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-design.md create mode 100644 docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-12-validation-publication-program-design.md diff --git a/INDEPENDENT_IMPLEMENTATION.md b/INDEPENDENT_IMPLEMENTATION.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f2232b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/INDEPENDENT_IMPLEMENTATION.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +# Call for independent implementations + +LLM Errata needs independently authored adapters and a separately produced +validator before it can claim interoperability. + +Repository: https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata + +Current verdict: **NOT_PROD_READY**. + +## Requested work + +Implement one adapter from the published schemas, vectors, and conformance +requirements without copying implementation code from `prototype/`. + +Candidate substrates include: + +- file-backed Markdown or knowledge-base memory; +- vector memory; +- graph memory; +- an agent framework's durable memory store; and +- an intentionally opaque or incomplete importer. + +The implementation must preserve correction, supersession, and erasure as +different operations; quarantine affected state before repair; run negative, +positive, and preservation checks; and report `partial`, `unknown`, or `failed` +without converting missing evidence into success. + +## Independence and evidence + +An implementation report must name its authors, repository and commit, supported +specification version, dependencies, test commands, unsupported behavior, and +licence. Shared conformance vectors are expected. Shared reference-adapter code +disqualifies the implementation as independent evidence. + +The current personal-use licence requires written permission to implement the +specification. Open a GitHub issue naming the research or standards scope, +repository, organization, requested version, and intended publication. A +permission grant does not imply technical endorsement. + diff --git a/REVIEW_REQUEST.md b/REVIEW_REQUEST.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8815fb5 --- /dev/null +++ b/REVIEW_REQUEST.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +# Independent review request + +LLM Errata is seeking independent technical review of an experimental +conformance proposal for repairing derived AI memory after a post-export +correction, supersession, or erasure. + +Repository: https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata + +Current verdict: **NOT_PROD_READY**. + +## Reviews requested + +### Novelty and conformance review + +Challenge the narrow conjunction in `RESEARCH.md` and `PRIOR_ART.md`. Identify +any earlier public implementation or normative profile that requires all of: + +1. post-export update delivery to prior importers; +2. importer-side quarantine and repair of known local descendants; +3. negative, positive, and preservation verification; and +4. a signed, coverage-aware callback bound to the event and importer state. + +Partial collisions are valuable and should narrow the proposal. + +### Security and distributed-systems review + +Review authorization, sequencing, rollback, equivocation, quarantine ordering, +lineage gaps, opaque coverage, receipt binding, erasure confidentiality, key +lifecycle, retries, and incomplete stores. Find the smallest counterexample that +breaks an invariant or makes the contract impractical. + +## Required review record + +Please identify: + +- your name or stable public identity; +- reviewed commit SHA and date; +- files and behavior reviewed; +- prior work or standards relied upon; +- blocking, major, and minor findings; +- conflicts of interest or prior involvement; and +- verdict: proceed, narrow, redesign, or retire. + +Open a GitHub issue for public findings. Security-sensitive findings must follow +`SECURITY.md`. Review invitations and automated reviews are not independent +evidence for the production-readiness ledger. + diff --git a/docs/PUBLICATION_STRATEGY.md b/docs/PUBLICATION_STRATEGY.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c7a77d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/PUBLICATION_STRATEGY.md @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ +# Publication strategy + +## Canonical destination + +Every publication points to: + +https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata + +Substantive prior-art, conformance, implementation, or security findings return +to traceable GitHub issues, pull requests, or private security reports. + +## Message + +**Problem:** portable AI memory can be corrected at its source while stale local +summaries, embeddings, profiles, graphs, and caches remain active elsewhere. + +**Proposal:** importers observe authenticated errata, quarantine known +descendants, rebuild from valid inputs, test absence/replacement/preservation, +and attest honestly—including `unknown` coverage. + +**Bounded claim:** reviewed sources contain the individual mechanisms, but no +reviewed public implementation or normative profile required the complete +conjunction at the dated cutoff. + +**Status:** experimental conformance proposal and tested reference +implementation; `NOT_PROD_READY`; no independent interoperability evidence yet. + +**Call:** find prior art, break the invariants, review the conformance surface, +or independently implement an adapter. + +## Channel matrix + +| Channel | Audience | Primary request | Publication gate | +|---|---|---|---| +| GitHub | implementers and reviewers | issues, review, adapters | repository and CI current | +| Hacker News | systems and open-source engineers | falsification and prior art | concise factual submission | +| LinkedIn | named researchers and standards experts | independent reviewers | authenticated author account | +| X | AI-memory practitioners | reviewer and implementer referrals | authenticated account | +| Reddit | focused technical communities | critique, not promotion | subreddit rules checked | +| DEV Community | developers | reproducible technical walkthrough | authenticated account | +| Medium | broader technical readers | explanatory article | authenticated account | +| Zenodo/OSF | citable archival record | archive release and evidence | stable reviewed release | +| arXiv | academic readers | paper and experiments | paper-quality manuscript | + +## Canonical short announcement + +> If an AI imports a memory, should it also accept responsibility for future +> corrections? LLM Errata is an experimental vendor-neutral conformance proposal: +> observe an authenticated correction, quarantine known descendants, rebuild +> from valid inputs, run negative/positive/preservation checks, and return a +> signed receipt that admits unknown coverage. The repository includes prior-art +> collisions, schemas, vectors, a runnable reference implementation, and explicit +> falsifiers. It is NOT_PROD_READY and needs independent review and adapters: +> https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata + +## Hacker News title + +`LLM Errata – making corrections follow portable AI memory` + +## LinkedIn opening + +`An imported AI memory is a dependency, not a copy.` + +The post should ask AI-memory, distributed-systems, privacy, and standards +specialists to review the exact four-part conjunction and identify collisions. + +## Publication evidence + +For every successful post, record channel, URL, publication timestamp, account, +source commit, exact copy digest, and moderation state. A submitted or queued +post is not recorded as publicly available until its URL is accessible. + diff --git a/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-and-publication.md b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-and-publication.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fe911ec --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-and-publication.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +# Semantic Probes and Publication Implementation Plan + +> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking. + +**Goal:** Complete the internal Phase 2 semantic-probe surface, publish independent-review and implementation calls, and expose the work through an evidence-bounded draft PR. + +**Architecture:** A provider-neutral semantic module records exact verifier configuration and validates structured observations. A recorded-fixture adapter makes conformance deterministic and offline. Publication artifacts remain documentation and GitHub calls; they never change readiness gates without external evidence. + +**Tech Stack:** Python 3.11+ standard library, `dataclasses`, `enum`, `hashlib`, `json`, `argparse`, `unittest`, GitHub Actions. + +## Global Constraints + +- Preserve correction, supersession, and erasure as distinct operations. +- Preserve quarantine-before-repair and negative-positive-preservation semantics. +- Never convert missing, inconclusive, malformed, configuration-drifted, or provider-error evidence into success. +- Erasure reports and fixtures must not retain the erased value. +- `make check` remains offline, standard-library-only, and green. +- Internal implementation cannot change G2 from `BLOCKED`; dated independent review is also required. +- Publication must state `NOT_PROD_READY` and link the canonical repository. + +--- + +### Task 1: Provider-neutral semantic evidence model + +**Files:** +- Create: `prototype/semantic.py` +- Test: `tests/test_semantic.py` + +**Interfaces:** +- Produces: `ProbeKind`, `ObservationVerdict`, `SemanticCoverage`, `SemanticProbe`, `VerifierConfig`, `SemanticObservation`, `SemanticProbeReport`, `SemanticVerifier`, `RecordedSemanticVerifier`, and `SemanticProbeRunner`. + +- [ ] Write tests for canonical configuration digests, all-pass verification, required failure, inconclusive/error/missing/duplicate/configuration-drift results, deterministic serialization, and erasure non-disclosure. +- [ ] Run `python3 -m unittest tests.test_semantic -v` and confirm the new module is missing. +- [ ] Implement immutable data models, canonical JSON serialization, strict parsing, the verifier protocol, recorded adapter, and fail-closed aggregation. +- [ ] Run the focused tests and confirm they pass. +- [ ] Commit with `feat: add provider-neutral semantic probe evidence`. + +### Task 2: Offline conformance fixtures and CLI + +**Files:** +- Create: `spec/semantic/probes.json` +- Create: `spec/semantic/verifier-config.json` +- Create: `spec/semantic/observations.json` +- Modify: `prototype/cli.py` +- Modify: `spec/README.md` +- Modify: `prototype/README.md` +- Test: `tests/test_cli.py` +- Test: `tests/test_semantic.py` + +**Interfaces:** +- Consumes: strict `from_dict` methods and `SemanticProbeRunner.run` from Task 1. +- Produces: `errata semantic-test --probes PATH --config PATH --observations PATH` with exit `0`, `1`, or `2`. + +- [ ] Add failing CLI tests for verified, failed, and unknown fixture sets plus malformed input. +- [ ] Add synthetic manifests containing no real or erased personal data. +- [ ] Implement the CLI command and canonical JSON report output. +- [ ] Document fixture format, command, exit codes, privacy boundary, and provider-adapter seam. +- [ ] Run focused CLI and semantic tests. +- [ ] Commit with `feat: publish semantic probe conformance fixtures`. + +### Task 3: Readiness, roadmap, and publication integration + +**Files:** +- Modify: `ROADMAP.md` +- Modify: `README.md` +- Modify: `PRODUCTION_READINESS.md` +- Modify: `readiness/production-readiness.json` +- Modify: `CHANGELOG.md` +- Modify: `PUBLISHING.md` +- Modify: `scripts/validate_repo.py` +- Modify: `tests/test_validate_repo.py` + +**Interfaces:** +- Consumes: Task 1 and Task 2 artifacts. +- Produces: accurate Phase 2 item 6 implementation status while G2 remains `BLOCKED` pending independent review. + +- [ ] Add regression tests requiring review and implementation-call artifacts and preventing Phase 2 completion from upgrading G2. +- [ ] Update maturity language, roadmap status, evidence references, and publication workflow. +- [ ] Run `make check` and `git diff --check`. +- [ ] Commit with `docs: open independent LLM Errata validation program`. + +### Task 4: Review, push, and public GitHub calls + +**Files:** +- Review all changes from the branch base. + +**Interfaces:** +- Produces: pushed branch, draft PR, reviewer recruitment issue, independent-implementation issue, and public URL ledger. + +- [ ] Conduct separate specification and code-quality review; repair every load-bearing finding. +- [ ] Run `make check`, `make links`, `git diff --check`, and secret-safe staged-content inspection. +- [ ] Push `agent/g2-publication` and create a draft PR targeting `agent/prod-readiness` until PR #3 merges. +- [ ] Create GitHub issues for independent review, implementation permission/recruitment, and Phase 3 system nominations. +- [ ] Publish authenticated external announcements where platform access and rules permit, then record exact URLs without upgrading readiness gates. + diff --git a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-design.md b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-design.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e155149 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-design.md @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +# Provider-Neutral Semantic Probes Design + +**Date:** 2026-08-12 + +**Status:** Approved as Phase 2 item 6 implementation scope + +## Purpose + +Add model-assisted behavioral evidence without coupling LLM Errata to one +provider or allowing nondeterministic, unavailable, or ambiguous verification +to become success. Structural checks remain deterministic and separate. + +## Architecture + +`prototype/semantic.py` defines four stable units: + +1. `SemanticProbe` describes one negative, positive, or preservation question, + its declared scope, operation, and whether it is required. +2. `VerifierConfig` records provider, model, prompt-template version, sampling + parameters, and an optional seed. Its canonical digest binds observations to + the exact verifier configuration. +3. `SemanticVerifier` is a protocol whose only operation evaluates one probe and + returns a structured observation. Provider SDKs remain outside the core. +4. `SemanticProbeRunner` validates observations and produces a coverage-aware + report. A deterministic `RecordedSemanticVerifier` consumes checked-in + synthetic fixtures for tests and offline conformance. + +The runner never interprets free-form prose as success. A verifier observation +must declare `pass`, `fail`, `inconclusive`, or `error`, bind the probe ID and +configuration digest, carry a timestamp, and include a SHA-256 digest of its raw +response. Raw provider output is not included in receipts. + +## Aggregation + +- all required observations valid and `pass` -> `verified`; +- any valid required `fail` -> `failed`; +- otherwise -> `unknown`. + +`inconclusive`, `error`, missing observations, duplicates, unexpected probe IDs, +configuration drift, malformed timestamps, or invalid digests all yield +`unknown` with explicit limitations. Optional probes never compensate for a +missing required probe. + +## Erasure boundary + +Erasure evidence must not reproduce erased content. An erasure probe record may +contain opaque commitments, synthetic labels, and a content-free prompt +template, but not the retired value. Runtime provider adapters may receive +ephemeral confidential inputs through provider-owned mechanisms; those inputs +are excluded from the persisted probe, observation, report, and receipt. + +The deterministic fixtures use synthetic propositions and still assert that the +serialized report contains no retired erasure value. + +## CLI and fixtures + +`errata semantic-test` accepts a probe manifest, verifier configuration, and +recorded-observation manifest. It prints the canonical report and exits: + +- `0` for `verified`; +- `1` for `failed`; +- `2` for `unknown`. + +Checked-in fixtures cover: + +- correction with all required probes passing; +- supersession with a failing negative probe; +- erasure with content-free records; +- inconclusive observation; +- provider error; +- missing response; +- duplicate response; +- configuration drift; and +- deliberately nonconforming verifier output. + +## Integration boundary + +This milestone publishes semantic evidence as a separate report and CLI command. +It does not silently change existing Phase 1 receipt semantics. A later reviewed +profile may embed or reference the semantic report from a receipt after external +conformance review settles binding and privacy questions. + +## Tests and evidence + +Unit tests must prove aggregation, binding, parser failure behavior, erasure +non-disclosure, deterministic serialization, and CLI exit codes. `make check` +must continue to run without network access or API keys. + +Implementation completes Phase 2 item 6 internally. G2 remains `BLOCKED` until +an independent reviewer evaluates the schemas, vectors, CLI, adapters, +cryptographic boundaries, and semantic-probe layer as one conformance surface. + diff --git a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-12-validation-publication-program-design.md b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-12-validation-publication-program-design.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f8685a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-12-validation-publication-program-design.md @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +# LLM Errata Validation and Publication Program Design + +**Date:** 2026-08-12 + +**Status:** Approved for execution by the repository owner + +## Objective + +Turn LLM Errata from a self-reviewed reference implementation into a publicly +falsifiable interoperability effort. Publication is part of validation: every +artifact must invite prior-art challenges, independent review, and independent +implementation without representing planned work as completed evidence. + +## Fixed claims boundary + +The program may describe LLM Errata as an experimental, vendor-neutral +conformance proposal and tested reference implementation. It may state that no +reviewed public source was found to require the complete four-part conjunction +at the dated research cutoff. + +The program must not describe LLM Errata as: + +- a world first, proven breakthrough, production protocol, or standard; +- proof of deletion, semantic absence, patentability, or freedom to operate; +- interoperable before independently authored implementations and measured + cross-system evidence exist; or +- externally reviewed when the only reviewers are the author or author-directed + agents. + +## Program sequence + +1. **Intellectual-property posture.** Retain the current personal-use licence. + Permit research and standards implementations through explicit written, + scoped grants. Do not relicense or make patent conclusions without separate + owner approval informed by qualified legal advice. +2. **Independent review.** Publish two calls: one for novelty/conformance review + and one for security/distributed-systems review. Reviews must identify the + reviewer, reviewed commit, date, scope, findings, and conflicts. +3. **Readiness-foundation integration.** Preserve PR #3 and branch protection. + It may merge only after the required separate CODEOWNER approval and green + required checks. +4. **G2 semantic evidence.** Implement the provider-neutral semantic-probe + design in the companion specification. Internal implementation can complete + Phase 2 item 6, but G2 remains `BLOCKED` until dated independent review of + the complete Phase 2 surface exists. +5. **Independent conformance and interoperability.** Recruit two independently + authored adapters and a separately produced validator. Only then run the + declared three-system experiment with synthetic data, one intentionally + nonconforming importer, and one genuinely incomplete-coverage system. +6. **Evidence-bounded publication.** Publish channel-specific calls that link + the canonical repository and request falsification, review, or implementation. + Record every public URL and the exact claim version used. + +## Licensing and permission strategy + +The current licence remains controlling. Research implementers may request a +written permission grant through a public GitHub issue. A grant must name: + +- grantee and repository or organization; +- research or standards purpose; +- permitted specification version and files; +- commercial and redistribution boundaries; +- term, attribution, and publication expectations; and +- whether resulting implementation evidence may be cited by LLM Errata. + +No permission request, discussion, or contribution changes the licence by +implication. Permission records must not disclose confidential legal advice. + +## Independent evidence contract + +An independent review qualifies only when its producer is not the author, not +the implementation maker being reviewed, and not an agent controlled by either. +It must be reproducible from a named commit and publish or privately deliver a +dated report with concrete findings. A review invitation is not review evidence. + +An independently authored adapter qualifies only when its author works from the +published specification and vectors rather than copying the reference adapter. +Shared test vectors are allowed and expected. Shared implementation code is not. + +## Publication channels + +Priority is based on evidence value rather than audience size: + +1. GitHub repository, issues, pull requests, and Discussions if enabled; +2. Hacker News and relevant technical forums for prior-art and systems critique; +3. LinkedIn and X for named expert recruitment; +4. Reddit communities whose rules permit research or open-source submissions; +5. archival research surfaces such as Zenodo or OSF after a citable release; +6. arXiv only after a paper-quality manuscript and appropriate category fit. + +Every post links `https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata`, uses the current +`NOT_PROD_READY` disclosure, and directs substantive findings into traceable +GitHub issues or pull requests. + +## Acceptance gates + +- Strategy, reviewer rubric, implementation call, and publication copy are + version-controlled and pass repository checks. +- G2 deterministic fixtures pass without credentials or network access. +- Missing, skipped, malformed, configuration-drifted, or inconclusive semantic + observations cannot support a verified semantic result. +- Recruitment and publication URLs are recorded after successful submission. +- Readiness gates change only from qualifying evidence, never from invitations, + implementation completion, CI, or publication volume. + +## Stop and reroute conditions + +Stop mutation or publication when copy would overstate evidence, platform rules +prohibit the submission, credentials are unavailable, a reviewer is not +independent, or implementation requires an unapproved licence change. Reroute +after a complete prior-art collision, external review rejection, material G2 +contract change, or failure to recruit independent implementers. + From e2057c9178d46f6bcc60e942e624f9d1e3e2e5d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Willner Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:49:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] docs: record public validation calls --- PHASE3_SYSTEMS.md | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ docs/PUBLICATION_LOG.md | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+) create mode 100644 PHASE3_SYSTEMS.md create mode 100644 docs/PUBLICATION_LOG.md diff --git a/PHASE3_SYSTEMS.md b/PHASE3_SYSTEMS.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a154b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/PHASE3_SYSTEMS.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +# Phase 3 system nominations + +LLM Errata is seeking nominations for three independently operated AI-memory +systems for a synthetic-data interoperability experiment. + +Repository: https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata + +Current verdict: **NOT_PROD_READY**. The experiment has not started. + +## Required experiment shape + +One synthetic memory root must receive a correction, supersession, and erasure +across three independently operated systems. The set must include: + +- one intentionally nonconforming importer; +- one system whose coverage is genuinely incomplete or opaque; and +- at least one system capable of recording derivation across mixed artifacts. + +Measurements include observation-to-quarantine time, known-descendant coverage, +stale-behavior rate, replacement activation, collateral retention, stale-reimport +resistance, opaque coverage, operator effort, and user-visible friction. + +## Nomination requirements + +Please name: + +- system, operator, public documentation, and version; +- memory stores and derivation surfaces exposed; +- API, account, cost, and data-residency requirements; +- deletion, correction, export, and audit capabilities; +- known opaque stores or unsupported coverage; and +- whether the operator can authorize a synthetic experiment and publish results. + +Nomination is not approval. Every system, account, integration, cost, and +interaction requires explicit owner authorization before the experiment begins. + diff --git a/docs/PUBLICATION_LOG.md b/docs/PUBLICATION_LOG.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5f2a812 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/PUBLICATION_LOG.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +# Publication log + +## Published + +| Date | Channel | Artifact | URL | Status | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-12 | GitHub Issues | Independent review request | https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata/issues/4 | Open | +| 2026-08-12 | GitHub Issues | Independent implementation call | https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata/issues/5 | Open | +| 2026-08-12 | GitHub Issues | Phase 3 system nominations | https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata/issues/6 | Open | + +All three artifacts state `NOT_PROD_READY` or explicitly deny that the named +experiment has started. Invitations do not constitute external evidence and do +not change any readiness gate. + +## Attempted but blocked + +| Date | Channel | Evidence | Result | +|---|---|---|---| +| 2026-08-12 | Hacker News | Submission page requested login | Not published | +| 2026-08-12 | LinkedIn | Feed redirected to login | Not published | +| 2026-08-12 | Reddit | No authenticated editor could be verified | Not published | +| 2026-08-12 | DEV Community | New-post page displayed sign-in providers | Not published | +| 2026-08-12 | Medium | New-story page redirected to sign-in | Not published | +| 2026-08-12 | X | Installed CLI lacked complete explicit authentication | Not published | + +No accounts were created, credentials entered, or platform protections bypassed. +Each channel can be retried after the owner authenticates an existing account +and current platform/community rules are checked. + +## Deferred channels + +- Zenodo or OSF: wait for a stable reviewed release suitable for archival DOI. +- arXiv: wait for a paper-quality manuscript and independent experimental evidence. +- standards venues: wait for external conformance review and interoperability + evidence; outreach must not imply adoption or endorsement. + +## Blocked implementation evidence + +The 2026-08-12 provider-neutral semantic-probe implementation was not published +as completed. Five task-review rounds ended with a remaining high-severity +privacy finding: provider exception class names could enter persisted erasure +limitations. Phase 2 item 6 and G2 therefore remain blocked. +