quorum-verificationlisted

# Verification This is the phase that earns the quorum. The retrospective is unusually clear about it: > The five strongest runs all had a **separate adversarial Verify phase**. The mediocre runs also had > named lenses — what they lacked was a phase whose only job was to try to break each finding. > > Measured: **31/36 findings confirmed**, with lens survival **uniform at 83-89% (~86%)**. The uniformity is the finding. If lens naming were doing the work, survival would vary by lens. It does not — the returns come from *having* a refutation step, not from perfecting the roster. **If you cut a phase, never cut this one. Cut a judge instead.** --- ## The contract: verifiers refute, they do not assess A verifier asked "is this finding valid?" will mostly say yes. The prompt must invert the burden. ``` A miner claims: TITLE: Token budget is not enforced on subagent spawns CLAIM: Subagents inherit no budget cap, so a fan-out can exceed the run budget EVIDENCE: workflow.js:142 spawns agents in a loop with no budget check; run 2026-08-14 shows 41 agents against a stated cap of 16 YOUR JOB IS TO REFUTE THIS. Independently re-open the cited evidence. Do not trust the miner's reading of it. Refute if ANY of these hold: - The cited evidence does not exist, or does not say what is claimed - The evidence exists but does not support the conclusion drawn - A mechanism elsewhere already prevents the problem - The finding is real but its stated impa