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.
claude
bff2120f42