The failure branch was a two-way choice — superseded?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R-226: the superseded message now names BOTH possibilities and restores the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superseded box — half of which R-226 deliberately reverses.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.
R-216: the offsite key recovery is a coupled feature and now says so. featureProbes +
featureMinAgent 0.125.0 + a Supports gate at the unlock entry point, FAILING CLOSED — an
agent that cannot answer is named as such instead of the customer's code being blamed.
Measured live: a 404 from agent 0.120.0 came back as "we did not accept your recovery
code, check that all ten words", in 0.134 s, against a perfect code.
R-218: delete the repo-password short-circuit in needsOffsiteCredential. The declaration
stops when the TIER WORKS, not when a key exists — installing a key is the recovery
screen's whole job, so succeeding at recovery was switching off the mechanism that would
have delivered the coordinates to use it.
R-219: the unlock finishes the job — place the key, bring the tier up, then list. Without
it the promised listing could never render on the shape the screen exists for.
R-217: an unreadable store no longer claims to have opened with unattributable content
(the OffsiteInventory{} zero value). Opened / empty / unreadable are three states.
R-222: a code that is right about a RETAINED earlier package is named, not blamed. States
what the hub knows and promises nothing — no read path exists.
R-215: GET /recovery is gated on the same predicate as the interception.
Five red-proofs, each demonstrated failing and restored.
admin