auditing-completion-claimslisted

# Auditing Completion Claims ## Core Rule A completion report is a claim, not a conclusion. Every claim proves something at exactly one layer and proves nothing above that layer. Before accepting or issuing one, answer four questions: 1. **What exactly was completed?** (scope, not vibes) 2. **What evidence proves it?** (artifact, command output, trace — not narrative) 3. **What remains unproven or undone?** (the claim's ceiling) 4. **Who owns the next step?** (a named role, not "later") A claim that cannot answer all four is not accepted and not issued; it is returned for evidence. ## Non-Equivalence Table These pairs are never treated as equal. When the left side is reported, the right side stays an open question: | Reported | Still unproven | |---|---| | Port is open / process is running | The correct program, version, and config are running | | File was changed | Running behavior changed (the process may hold old code) | | Command exited 0 / HTTP `200` | The payload is correct and sufficient | | Tests pass / lint passes | The business behavior is correct | | Works locally | Works in shared/staging/production environments | | Smoke test passed | Full acceptance passed | | QA passed with conditions | Acceptance is complete | | Rule/spec is written | Code implements it | | Recorded as TODO | The stakeholder has seen and confirmed it | | Branch name is correct | The branch was cut from the correct baseline | | Checked in the local clone | The remote actually has it / la