--- title: Queries testing back-fill examination examined_at: '2026-10-23' examiner: codex source_sha: services-platform: ad3f6a6582843008ed0f5a17b131878d15829af1 react-console: baf6dae382d6f41dce976c7f848667ccc37e076f rhythm-v2-docs: f946bdcc118035206f18109fbf69cd8e9e785aaf branch: agent/platform-queries-test-exam-2 counts: specifications_extended: 20 capability_scenarios_before: 236 capability_scenarios_after: 286 scenarios_added_by_category: rule: 0 transition: 1 validation: 0 permission: 0 edge: 0 failure: 0 boundary: 0 concurrency: 1 invariant: 0 interaction: 48 feature_suites_written: 8 feature_scenarios_written: 40 executable_suites_registered: 475 executable_suites_by_kind: browser-lifecycle: 185 unit: 85 api-lifecycle: 22 integration: 182 inference: 1 bindings_made: 292 scenarios_with_executable_bindings: 225 unbound_capability_scenarios: 64 unbound_feature_scenarios: 37 unmapped_executable_suites: 362 new_coverage_findings: 24 category_gap_cells: 59 transition_obligations: 89 unmapped_domain_invariants: 11 validation: dependency_install: passed corpus_check: 'passed: zero errors' corpus_tests: 'passed: 7 tests, zero failures' application_suites: not-run evidence: - 'rhythm-v2-docs:specs/CONVENTIONS.md#9.10 Capability Test Specification' - 'rhythm-v2-docs:specs/CONVENTIONS.md#5.3 Feature Acceptance Suite' - 'rhythm-v2-docs:specs/CONVENTIONS.md#10 Implementation and QA Kinds' - 'rhythm-v2-docs:specs/platform/queries/ID_REGISTRY.md' - 'rhythm-v2-docs:specs/platform/queries/FINDINGS.md' verdict: >- The testing corpus is complete for this back-fill scope: every capability has a categorized specification, every feature has an acceptance suite and all registered executable files exist at the pinned revisions. Its weakest areas remain the recorded publication, concurrency, permission and workspace-export proof gaps, and most feature chains have no complete executable binding. Andrew should resolve the existing product questions and prioritize the recorded proofs before treating this static examination as delivery qualification. pending_bindings: [] remaining: [] previous_pass: branch: agent/platform-queries-testing-1 report: TESTING-EXAMINATION-2026-10-23.md source_sha: 99376625d3e7ac26936413cfc31a88fba6562464 continuation: artifacts_rewritten: 6 feature_bindings_activated: 3 new_scenarios: 0 new_findings: 0 existing_findings_resolved: - FND-PFM-QRY-073 - FND-PFM-QRY-074 category_gap_cells: 59 application_suites: not-run --- # Queries testing back-fill examination ## Completed corpus The prior OpenAI pass supplied final text for twenty capability test specifications, eight feature acceptance suites and 475 executable-suite records. It added fifty capability scenarios and forty feature scenarios. Its remaining work consisted of a report filename and three feature bindings; other incomplete proofs were already recorded as findings. | Measure | Final count | |---|---:| | Capability specifications | 20 | | Capability scenarios | 286 | | Feature suites | 8 | | Feature scenarios | 40 | | Registered executable suites | 475 | | Suite-to-scenario bindings | 292 | | Scenarios with executable bindings | 225 | | Unbound capability scenarios | 64 | | Unbound feature scenarios | 37 | | Executable suites without an exact mapping | 362 | | Category cells with coverage findings | 59 | ## Continuation (pass 2) This pass audits every capability coverage map and scenario category, the complete executable file register and reciprocal scenario bindings. All registered files exist, all ten categories are present in each map and every covered category has a scenario. The earlier report lists no artifact awaiting its first OpenAI rewrite. Three feature suites and their executable records receive revised final text after direct source inspection. The report-sharing chain checks private copying, source-audience refusal, compatible sharing and a colleague’s read-only totals. The delivery chain checks loss of report access, a failed occurrence without output or messages, refused owner takeover and administrator recovery; its prerequisite now matches the report-sharing action in the source. The snapshot chain checks a published replacement and a failed small self-test attempt while retaining the prior selected version. The current checker accepts the required dated report name and registered feature scenario references. The continuation activates all three bindings, resolves the two historical compatibility findings and records the revised status in the module charter. No new scenario or finding identifier is needed, and existing identifiers, approval values and application revision pins remain unchanged. ## Recorded limits The retained coverage findings account for missing focused transitions, invariants, permission combinations, concurrency cases and complete feature chains. Source bindings identify contributed assertions and do not certify full rule conformance. Small snapshot rollback does not establish cleanup of committed chunks, and the delivery journey uses development services and hourly waits. The capability evidence heading remains qualified because the current checker still rejects the unqualified heading requested by the authoring contract. This is the previously documented presentation limitation; the evidence stays in frontmatter and no checker file changes in this pass. Application suites remain unrun and their result and conformance fields remain unverified. ## Validation Dependency installation succeeds, corpus conformance has zero errors and the repository tests pass. Existing corpus warnings remain visible. No source application, workflow configuration or deployment changes, and no application execution result is inferred from inspection. ## Verdict for Andrew The testing corpus is complete for this back-fill scope: every capability has a categorized specification, every feature has an acceptance suite and all registered executable files exist at the pinned revisions. Its weakest areas remain the recorded publication, concurrency, permission and workspace-export proof gaps, and most feature chains have no complete executable binding. Andrew should resolve the existing product questions and prioritize the recorded proofs before treating this static examination as delivery qualification.