CyberSecurityUPandClaude Opus 5 9c6b2a3c54 feat(prosecutor): a second judge that shrinks claims instead of deleting findings ...

The existing voters answer "is this finding real?", which invites judging the
whole narrative at once — and that is how a proven missing control got deleted
for having an overstated headline. One lever, one verdict, observation gone.

The Evidence Prosecutor has a narrower brief and four questions in order: what
exactly was observed, which sentences go beyond that, what would have to be
observed for the claimed impact to be factual, and — the one that decides
retain-versus-reject — would anything security-relevant remain if the
unsupported sentences were removed.

It cannot pass sentence. There is no verdict field in its contract (a test
asserts the prompt never offers one), and apply() can only narrow: the minimal
supported statement replaces the mechanic, the asserted impact is demoted to
potential with the conditions that would make it factual attached. Nothing it
returns can raise a severity, add an impact, or drop a finding.

A self-contradicting verdict — "nothing survives" alongside a minimal claim —
is detected and the reading that keeps the observation wins: the claim is a
concrete artifact, the boolean is an opinion about it.

Findings from before the claim contract get a ledger reconstructed from what
they recorded (structured evidence where present, quoted evidence lines
otherwise), so the back catalogue is judged rather than silently skipped.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-09-14 00:35:38 -03:00

..

src

feat(prosecutor): a second judge that shrinks claims instead of deleting findings

2026-09-14 00:35:38 -03:00

Cargo.toml

feat(harness): risk model, engagement policies, capability tokens, audit trail

2026-09-13 17:56:31 -03:00