R-224/R-226 Part 1: why the unlock failed decides what we say

The failure branch was a two-way choice — superseded? M4 : M1 — and BOTH are
statements about the customer's code. rerr was never inspected, so a hub that
refused, an agent that was stopped and a genuinely mistyped code all produced
the same accusation. Measured live 2026-08-05 with a CORRECT current code: hub
firewalled off 0.0556s, agent stopped 0.0299s, against ~1.0s for a real unseal.

Five classes, from the VALUE and never the text:
  hub-unreachable    502/503 from the agent — the code was NOT used
  agent-unreachable  no agent verdict at all (transport) — NOT used
  no-bundle          404
  bundle-too-old     409
  asked-and-refused  400 — the ONLY class that may mention typing
  unknown            everything else -> NEUTRAL, the safe default

agentapi.RecoveryRefusal carries the status as a value (refusalError flattened
it into a sentence, and a sentence is not something a caller can branch on).

THE OLD-AGENT CASE IS WHY THIS NEEDS A COUPLING. Agent < 0.126.0 answers 400
for both a fetch failure and a wrong code, so a 400 from one cannot be read as
a refusal. FeatureRecoveryFailureClass (MinAgent 0.126.0) withholds that
reading and the 400 degrades to neutral. The gate BLOCKS NOTHING — it only
decides whether the customer may be told to check their typing.

R-226: the superseded message now names BOTH possibilities and restores the
ten-words prompt. The two are indistinguishable at the engine; the honest
message says so. It still does not promise the earlier package can be opened.

Elapsed time is logged (it is what diagnosed this) and is NEVER a classifier.

Tests: scenarios A-E at the HANDLER + the classifier table asserting the same
sentence under two statuses classifies two ways. Red-proofs, each demonstrated
failing then restored: delete the 502 case (A), remove the mistype clause (C),
default to the accusation (D), route an instant transport failure to the typing
message (E).

Two existing tests encoded the defect and were corrected, not deleted: the web
fake returned a BARE error for 'wrong code' (which is the shape of a failure we
cannot classify), and R-222's test forbade any mention of typing on a
superseded box — half of which R-226 deliberately reverses.

28 packages ok, vet clean, all controller gates OK.

controller/internal/web/recovery_gate_test.go

@@ -180,8 +180,24 @@ func TestRecoveryGate_H_SupersededPackageIsNamed(t *testing.T) {
 
 	body := postUnlockWith(t, f.s, testRecoveryCode).Body.String()
 
-	if blamesTyping(body) {
-		t.Fatal("R-222 RETURNED: a code that is RIGHT about a retained earlier package is blamed on the customer's typing")
+	// ⚠ R-226 DELIBERATELY REVERSED HALF OF THIS ASSERTION (2026-08-06), so it is spelled out.
+	//
+	// As first shipped, this test forbade ANY mention of typing here — R-222's guarantee was that a
+	// customer holding the RIGHT code for a retained earlier package must not be told they mistyped.
+	// That was right about the accusation and wrong about the omission: because this branch is tested
+	// BEFORE the wrong-code message, it made the ten-words prompt UNREACHABLE on every box the hub
+	// keeps an earlier package for — which is exactly the box whose customer has just been given a new
+	// code and is most likely to be typing one. Measured 2026-08-05 (CAMPAIGN-11 F1): three genuinely
+	// wrong codes, three real ~1 s unseals, three copies of the earlier-package message.
+	//
+	// The two causes are INDISTINGUISHABLE at the engine, so the message now names BOTH. What stays
+	// forbidden is the bare ACCUSATION — the M1 opener that asserts the code was simply not accepted
+	// and says nothing about the retained package.
+	if strings.Contains(body, "nem fogadtuk el") {
+		t.Fatal("R-222 RETURNED: the bare wrong-code accusation, with no mention of the retained earlier package")
+	}
+	if !blamesTyping(body) {
+		t.Fatal("R-226 RETURNED: a genuine mistype on a re-escrowed box is given no way to discover it was a mistype")
 	}
 	if !strings.Contains(body, "nem töröltük") {
 		t.Errorf("the customer must be told the earlier package is kept; got: %q", firstAlert(body))