`tools/eureka-cut9-mutations.psd1`, V1-V23: every rule the views decide,
with the edit that removes it and the test that must fail while it is
applied. A rule with two weakenings gets two entries, `Vn` for the rule
absent and `VnL` for the rule weakened rather than removed, so a suite
that only catches the crude form does not pass for the subtle one. 34
entries; M0 green and every one killed.
V1 is the proof that in force has one owner: its mutant lands in
`docs.rs`, and V1L is H41's own edit run against the views instead of
the rules. One mutant, two suites.
Four tests grew to put a mutant in reach of a real failure, which is the
point of writing the entries before trusting the suite:
- Two receipts naming one write, forged and planted, so the integrity
check that refuses them is not dead text.
- A cut spec whose withdrawal is itself withdrawn, so `base` has two
steps to walk and stopping at one is visible.
- A `cut-1` spec beside `cut-9` and `cut-10`, so the prefix that ends at
the dot is not the same answer as the prefix that does not.
- A second report of one cut, judged by nothing, so "this cut has a
verdict" and "this report has one" come apart.
Three weakenings the map names have no entry and say why in the file's
header: the `semantic` check moved below the filters still refuses;
`resolutions_of` ignoring a subject's kind cannot matter while an id
carries its own kind segment; `assignments_of` ignoring the instance
cannot matter while A5 refuses a stewardship naming another. A mutation
that cannot fail is not a proof, and listing it would only make the
suite look thorough.
Nine cut-8 entries moved with their code in the first commit; that suite
is green as well, H1-H67, M0 included.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
8fc39b127e