# The alarm truth table for the update night, scored against `08-alarm-ladder.md`

**READ THE LIMIT FIRST, because it bounds every row.** Guest 9202 runs with `hub.enabled: false`.
Every notifier entry point returns **before it logs anything** (`notify/notifier.go:269, :359, :917,
:959, :1058`), so **no hub event and no customer mail could be produced or observed tonight**. The
hub was not enabled on 9202 to get around this: that would register an unclaimed host at the live
hub and could mail a real address, and the brief fences the hub. Filed as **R-620**.

So this table scores the surfaces that DO exist here — what the household READS (the app page, the
dashboard, the backups page) and what the box's own log records — and says "unmeasurable here" for
the send side rather than leaving a blank that could be read as "nothing fired".

| # | what happened | should it alarm, per `08` | did the box classify it that way | what the household could READ | verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<!-- ROWS -->

## The three things this table is for

**1. Which alarm fired and was it true.** <FIRED>

**2. Which should have fired and did not.** <MISSING>

**3. The one that is structurally invisible on this venue.** Every row's "who was told" column is
answered only for the SCREEN. `08` §6.1's severity contract and §6.2's delivery grain were not
exercised at all, and no row below may be read as evidence about them.

## A note on `unhealthy`, because two of tonight's findings turn on it

`08` §4 puts `unhealthy` deliberately in the **NOT-down** set — *"a running container whose
healthcheck is failing. Folding it in reintroduces the flapping fix-3 was written to stop."* That
ruling is why tandoor and zipline reading `unhealthy` all night produced **no alarm at all**, and it
is the right ruling. **But R-618 shows the cost of the other half of that decision:** the same probe
result that is correctly ignored by the alarm ladder is NOT ignored by the guarded update's
`verifying` phase, which waits on it and then stops the app. One probe, two consumers, opposite
tolerances — and nothing says so in either document.