admin
1da2c9c6c6
gates / gates (push) Successful in 11s
REPORT overwritten: the 1.1 sweep in full (one bad severity, nine legitimate "warn" strings that are healthcheck statuses), the hub manifest's real location since the task's premise was wrong, all five red-proofs with the layer each guard sits at, the live walk in six steps with the hub's own records quoted, and the absent-intent count (0 of 8). Three things are reported that a tidier account would omit: red-proof 5 passed first time because the mutation was INERT; Scenario G was silently refused twice behind an HTTP 200; and the live Scenario A does NOT prove the customer gate, because demo-hp has no prefs row at all. CONTEXT records the severity vocabulary as a ruling with its mechanism, the intent ruling with its three-way handling of unknown, both fences, and two traps worth more than the fixes: a 200 can be a refusal, and a passing red-proof can mean an inert mutation. README: the event table said `app_start_failed | warn` - the defect, written down as if correct. Now `warning`, with the vocabulary contract and who receives what. `disk_critical` also corrected from `error` to `critical`, which is what fillwatch has always sent.