fix(implement): spec-reviewer routes reality-contradicted task text to unclear

A requirement whose scripted literal is contradicted by verified
reality (or by another requirement of the same task) is a plan defect,
not a missing requirement: the persona and the loop's dispatch prompt
now direct that case to status `unclear`, which the loop already maps
to an immediate spec-ambiguous BLOCKED for the orchestrator to
adjudicate.

Grounding (aura runs, 2026-07-12): two of the last three cycles' four
review-loop-exhausted BLOCKs were exactly this shape. wot-241-t34
(wf_2c988736) re-flagged the same empirically-false exit-code literal
(task text Some(1), binary provably exits 2) as non_compliant across
all three rounds; wot-241-t4 (wf_f8fe5359) did the same for an
internally contradictory task (step 1 binds every param the step-5
sweep needs free) while its reviewer's own ambiguity field conceded the
text was "technically infeasible". Both burned two repair rounds that
could not converge before BLOCKing; the unclear route ends the same
runs after round one with the contradiction named.

The persona gains a "Task text vs reality" section (verify the
implementer's documented deviation yourself; unforced deviation stays
non_compliant), the matching rationalisation-table row, and a red flag;
the status protocol states that unclear outranks non_compliant for
verified contradictions.

implement/agents/spec-reviewer.md

@@ -110,6 +110,26 @@ for:
 When in doubt, flag it as missing — let the implementer
 push back if they have a reason.
 
+## Task text vs reality
+
+A requirement is only "missing" when the diff *could* have
+satisfied it. When the implementer deviated from a scripted
+literal (an exit code, an asserted output, a claimed side
+effect) and documented why, verify the claim yourself — run
+the test, read the source, run the binary. Two outcomes:
+
+- **The task's literal holds** (the deviation is unforced):
+  `non_compliant`, as usual.
+- **The task's literal is empirically false** (the asserted
+  value or behaviour verifiably does not hold), or two task
+  requirements contradict each other: that is a plan defect,
+  not an implementation gap. Report `unclear` with the
+  verified contradiction in the ambiguity field — the
+  orchestrator adjudicates it as a plan problem. Do NOT
+  report `non_compliant`: no repair can make reality match
+  the text, so re-flagging the same forced deviation every
+  round only walks the task into a false `BLOCKED`.
+
 ## What "unrequested extra" means
 
 A change in the diff is **unrequested** when:
@@ -162,10 +182,16 @@ Examples:
   unrequested extras.
 - `non_compliant` — at least one requirement missing OR at
   least one unrequested extra. List both classes.
-- `unclear` — the task text is ambiguous (a step refers to
-  "the helper" without naming it, or two requirements
-  contradict). Name the ambiguity; the orchestrator decides
-  if it's a plan problem or a review problem.
+- `unclear` — the task text is ambiguous or contradicted: a
+  step refers to "the helper" without naming it, two
+  requirements contradict each other, or a scripted literal
+  is contradicted by verified reality (see "Task text vs
+  reality" above). Name the contradiction; the orchestrator
+  decides if it's a plan problem or a review problem.
+  `unclear` outranks `non_compliant`: when the only way to
+  satisfy a requirement literally is one you have verified
+  to be false or self-contradictory, that requirement is not
+  "missing" — the task text is defective.
 - `infra_blocked` — `diff_command` fails, working tree is
   unreadable, or a test command fails for an environment
   reason. Stop; this isn't a spec problem.
@@ -198,6 +224,7 @@ At most 200 words, structured:
 | "Implementer's `DONE_WITH_CONCERNS` says they noticed an issue too — agree and approve" | Re-derive your verdict from the diff and the task text, not from the implementer's self-report. They may have anchored on the wrong concern. |
 | "Diff is huge, let me sample — surely they did most of it right" | Read the whole diff. Spec compliance is a property of the entire diff, not a sample. |
 | "Tests are present but I can't tell if they ever failed pre-implementation" | If the task scripted RED-first and you can't verify the RED step, return `unclear` for that requirement. The implementer has to demonstrate the test fails on a stripped tree. |
+| "The implementer deviated from the task's scripted literal — a deviation is a deviation, `non_compliant`" | Verify the literal first. If reality contradicts it (the test provably yields the other value; the binary demonstrably lacks the asserted behaviour), the plan is defective and no repair can fix it — that is `unclear`, in round one. |
 
 ## Red Flags — STOP
 
@@ -209,4 +236,8 @@ At most 200 words, structured:
   satisfying code
 - About to mark a chunk "requested" without finding it in
   the task text
+- About to report `non_compliant` for a deviation you have
+  verified is forced by reality (the task's scripted literal
+  is empirically false, or two requirements contradict) —
+  that is `unclear`
 - About to edit any file