Tafadzwa Mukungurutse
PROOF / ASSERTION-GATED WORKFLOW

The run said success.
The postcondition said wrong.

Scenario A is one real capture workflow, one deterministic check, and the evidence that makes the mismatch inspectable.

Read the traceReplay instructions

What actually happened

RUNdevos.capture.capture_writecap-20260825-745a
ASSERTExpected: external artifact absentexternal artifact created without explicit authorization
OBSERVEDIssue #4 existsLive issue evidence

tool: tool reported success · postcondition: FAIL · resource: issue

The gate caught it

01 operator_intentcapture-only
02 capture_writetool reported success
03 source_of_truthissue #4 exists
04 assertionpostcondition FAIL

ASSERT · DEMONSTRATED · postcondition FAIL

Controls that are (and are not) demonstrated

01 ASSERT

Compare the external world against the expected business fact.

demonstrated
02 BOUND

Retry and durable state require evidence from this same workflow.

not-demonstrated
03 APPROVE

Intent-to-flag mapping and external-write approval remain a future control.

not-demonstrated

Replay and review

Replay uses recorded/redacted GitHub Issues API responses or a throwaway repository. It never writes to the observed repository. Issue #4 is a live, read-only provenance link—not replay input and not a screenshot.

Source revision: sha256:ae03f04deefdfdcc45e3afbaae2967c88c829eda753bbc91dde589b7e720ea96
Evidence digest: dee62b9e4307585a545f13c9842be6960e7a46f7ab236b398a1c2efbaef87ba9
Reviewer: Tafadzwa · decision: approved

Open live issue #4 evidence

What still breaks

  • BOUND is not demonstrated.
  • APPROVE is not demonstrated; Scenario A exposes an intent-to-flag mapping gap.
  • Issue #4 is live link-only provenance, never replay input or screenshot.
  • No reliability, ROI, cost-saving, or production-wide claim follows from this proof.