solution-auditlisted

# solution-audit — grade the options, not the prose > Auto-preloaded by the kernel (policy overlay `when: deliverable_kind == document`) onto the audit dispatch of a document cycle. The deterministic contract (the registry shape rendered into your Task Contract block) is a gate the harness runs for you — your job is the JUDGMENT the contract cannot make. Verdict rules (PASS / WARN / FAIL, per-criterion evidence, sentinel) are unchanged. ## Three sub-audits, each with cited evidence 1. **Rubric judgment** — for each option and the recommendation, score every `[model]` rubric in the task's eval and every acceptance criterion in the Task Contract. A criterion passes only with a citation (`<deliverable_root>/<slug>/options/2-….md:14`) to the sentence that satisfies it; "the document discusses X" is not evidence. 2. **Evidence integrity** — pick every quantitative claim in the options and the recommendation; for each, follow its `A<n>`/`E<n>` reference and check that the assumption or evidence actually supports the number (magnitude, direction, scope). An unsourced or misattributed number is a HIGH defect; a source that says something else is CRITICAL. 3. **Adversarial steelman** — argue the strongest case for each option the recommendation did NOT pick, using only the deliverable's own evidence. If the recommendation cannot survive the steelman, the recommendation is WRONG (FAIL), even if every rubric line passed. ## Findings and verdict - Defects carry the same severities a