Review finding 2, and it is the same duplication `disagrees()` just removed, so
it gets the same fix rather than a follow-up card.
`following_from()` in test_watchdog.py was a TRANSCRIPTION of the gate in
main.py, carrying "keep the two in step" as an instruction - which is exactly the
arrangement that does not keep two things in step. Measured: editing the shipped
gate alone to `winner in ("loop", "peak")` left every suite green while the
watchdog went blind for the duration of every peak event. The row whose whole job
is to force whoever lands peak shaving to come and change an expectation did not
do that.
The expression is now `watchdog.loop_is_following()`, called by main.py and by
the test. One definition, two callers, same reasoning as `disagrees()`: the copy
that drifts is always the one in the harness doing the grading.
⚠️ AND EXTRACTING IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT - the drift proof still came out green
after the extraction, which is why it was worth running rather than assuming. The
realistic P_PEAK row has peak shaving asking for MORE than the loop, so the
magnitude term rejects it whatever `winner` says and masks the term under test. A
second row with peak asking for LESS makes `winner` the only deciding term. With
that row, widening the shipped gate fails two checks; without it, none.
Also enforcing the write ordering that was documented and not asserted: swapping
the two `store.set` calls passed everything. A store that fails the second write
now proves the property the ordering exists for - a crash mid-trip leaves a
reason with no latch, never a latch with no explanation. Swapping them now turns
that check red.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa
