Integrations Testing Back-Fill

Counts

The first pass established the testing inventory shown below. The continuation preserves its identifiers, scenario definitions and bindings; the new examination changes proof-boundary wording and resolves the report-name requirement.

Measure	Existing corpus total	Added in pass 2
Capability test specifications	22	0
Capability scenarios	250	0
Feature acceptance suites	6	0
Feature scenarios	30	0
Executable suite registrations	640	0
Scenario-to-suite bindings	281	0
Bound capability scenarios	162	0
Bound feature scenarios	0	0
Coverage-gap findings	59	0
Category gaps	72	0
Excluded acceptance shells	69	0

The first pass added seventeen transition scenarios, fifty-four interaction scenarios and one concurrency scenario. No other category gained scenarios in that pass, and this continuation adds no scenarios.

Continuation (pass 2)

All twenty-two capability specifications have a ten-category coverage map and categorized scenarios. All six features have an acceptance suite and a matching acceptance reference. The source inventory accounts for the scoped service and shared-library suites; the sixty-nine unregistered acceptance shells are already enumerated in the coverage finding.

The examination checks every registered file and every retained test-case title at the pinned commits, verifies reciprocal bindings, compares the proposed transition matrices with the state models and checks each declared related-capability link for an interaction scenario. It also checks required-rule and object-invariant omissions against the existing findings. These are source and corpus checks; no product suite executes in this documentation pass.

The continuation rewrites the explanatory sections of all capability specifications and feature suites. Every bound capability scenario now states that its tests contribute only their asserted outcomes; additional branches and composed sequences remain proposed. The executable registrations retain the previous OpenAI text and their unexecuted, unverified result values after the inventory and anchor audit.

The requested back-fill report name is accepted by the checker at the starting corpus commit. The report moves to that name, and the module’s report references follow it. A new finding records conflicting historical finding allocations; every existing identifier remains unchanged and the registry now names the next unused finding number.

Remaining Findings

Eighteen required rules lack a designed scenario and are explicitly listed in coverage findings. Seventy-two category gaps, eighty-eight unbound capability scenarios and all thirty unbound feature compositions also remain findings. Fifty-six object invariants lack a direct scenario reference, and their independent proof obligations remain recorded rather than being inferred from transition coverage.

Some registered browser suites contain unavailable or conditional steps. Their registration and partial assertions cannot establish complete feature acceptance. The conflicting historical finding allocations need Andrew’s disposition; the current checker passes despite that semantic collision.

No authoring item from the previous report remains unrecorded. The remaining work is the proof and product disposition identified by the findings, not an omitted suite, binding or report.

Verdict for Andrew

The testing corpus now gives a traceable source-level account of the module at the pinned commits, and every remaining examination obligation is either documented or recorded as a finding. Its weakest evidence is executable proof of composed feature flows, uncovered rule and invariant obligations, and browser steps that depend on unavailable harness support. Before qualification, resolve the finding-identifier collision, decide the open product boundaries and implement and run the missing proof without treating source observations as approval.