@openwop/openwop-conformance 1.152.0 → 1.154.0

package/src/scenarios/form-content-packs.test.ts

@@ -1,415 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * Form-content packs (RFC 0137, `Active`).
- *
- * A form-content pack (`kind: "form-content"`) distributes FORM TEMPLATES — a
- * named, versioned, ordered set of typed input fields a host instantiates into
- * an ordinary, fully editable form through its normal create path. It is the
- * sixth declarative pack kind under RFC 0107 and is purely inert: no `runtime`,
- * no entry point, no handler, no submission surface the host would not
- * otherwise accept.
- *
- * Always-on + server-free. Three parts:
- *
- *   PART 1 — contract present. `form-content-packs.md` carries the
- *   instantiation rules + the F1 trust boundary; `registry-operations.md`
- *   §"Validation flow" selects the per-kind source schema for `form-content`
- *   and skips the runtime check for it. Guards against the requirement being
- *   silently dropped.
- *
- *   PART 2 — the version-manifest schema admits the kind and still rejects
- *   malformed ones. Includes an explicit leg for the `anyOf` payload gate:
- *   extending the `kind` enum and declaring `templates` is NECESSARY BUT NOT
- *   SUFFICIENT — without a `templates` branch in `anyOf`, every form-content
- *   manifest is rejected. That omission is believed to be the second face of
- *   the CI failure that motivated RFC 0137, so it gets its own assertion.
- *
- *   PART 3 — the field vocabulary is SHARED, not forked. `fields[].type` in
- *   `form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json` MUST be byte-identical to
- *   `InputField.type` in `chat-card-pack-manifest.schema.json`. Two declarative
- *   kinds that both collect typed user input, rendered by the same host
- *   machinery, MUST agree on what a field type means. This is the regression
- *   guard for RFC 0137 R2: it fails the moment either kind's vocabulary is
- *   widened alone.
- *
- * @see spec/v1/form-content-packs.md
- * @see spec/v1/chat-card-packs.md §"Input fields — a closed portable subset"
- * @see spec/v1/registry-operations.md §"Validation flow"
- * @see schemas/form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json
- * @see RFCS/0137-form-content-packs.md, RFCS/0107-publishable-declarative-pack-kinds.md
- */
-
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
-import { join } from 'node:path';
-import Ajv2020 from 'ajv/dist/2020.js';
-import addFormats from 'ajv-formats';
-import { SCHEMAS_DIR, V1_DIR } from '../lib/paths.js';
-
-const why = (specRef: string, requirement: string): string => `${specRef} — ${requirement}`;
-
-const readSchema = (name: string): Record<string, unknown> =>
-  JSON.parse(readFileSync(join(SCHEMAS_DIR, name), 'utf8'));
-
-describe('form-content-packs: contract present in the corpus (RFC 0137, server-free)', () => {
-  const registryDoc = V1_DIR ? readFileSync(join(V1_DIR, 'registry-operations.md'), 'utf8') : '';
-  const formDoc = V1_DIR ? readFileSync(join(V1_DIR, 'form-content-packs.md'), 'utf8') : '';
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('registry-operations.md §Validation flow selects the form-content source schema by `kind`', () => {
-    expect(
-      /form-content[\s\S]{0,160}form-content-pack-manifest\.schema\.json/.test(registryDoc),
-      why('registry-operations.md §Validation flow #3', '`kind: "form-content"` validates against its own source schema (RFC 0137)'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('registry-operations.md skips the runtime-support check for form-content', () => {
-    expect(
-      /declarative[\s\S]{0,200}form-content/.test(registryDoc),
-      why('registry-operations.md §Validation flow #7', 'form-content is a declarative kind — the runtime check is skipped'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('registry-operations.md extends the declarative-id denormalization to templateId', () => {
-    expect(
-      /templates\[\]\.templateId/.test(registryDoc),
-      why('registry-operations.md §Type-ID indexing', 'a registry SHOULD denormalize `templates[].templateId` (RFC 0137)'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('form-content-packs.md requires the host to use its NORMAL create path and execute nothing', () => {
-    expect(
-      /MUST[\s\S]{0,120}normal[\s\S]{0,40}create path/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Instantiation', 'the host MUST instantiate through its normal create path'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-    expect(
-      /MUST NOT execute anything from the pack/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Instantiation', 'the host MUST NOT execute anything from the pack — the kind is inert'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('form-content-packs.md carries the F1 trust boundary, incl. "a signature is not content trust"', () => {
-    expect(
-      /untrusted/i.test(formDoc) && /contentTrust/.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Trust boundary', 'pack-authored strings are untrusted; prompts propagate meta.contentTrust'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-    expect(
-      /signature proves[\s\S]{0,80}not[\s\S]{0,60}trustworthy|MUST NOT treat pack provenance as content trust/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Trust boundary', 'a signature proves authorship, NOT that the authored bytes are safe'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-    expect(
-      /Length bounds are not a trust boundary/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Trust boundary', 'maxLength is a resource guard, NOT sanitization'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('the spec distinguishes DEGRADE (well-formed extension) from REFUSE (malformed value)', () => {
-    expect(
-      /Degrade applies to \*extensions\*, not to malformed values/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Instantiation', 'MUST-degrade is scoped to vendor.*/x- extensions, not bare unknowns'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-    expect(
-      /MUST NOT collapse these into one rule in either direction/i.test(formDoc),
-      why(
-        'form-content-packs.md §Instantiation',
-        'refusing a well-formed extension breaks forward compat; degrading a malformed value hides an authoring error',
-      ),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('form-content-packs.md forbids minting a second field-type vocabulary', () => {
-    expect(
-      /MUST NOT\W{0,4}\s*define its own field-type vocabulary/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Field types', 'the kind reuses the RFC 0071 portable subset rather than defining its own'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-});
-
-describe('form-content-packs: version-manifest schema admits the kind (RFC 0137, server-free)', () => {
-  const ajv = new Ajv2020({ allErrors: true, strict: false });
-  addFormats(ajv);
-  const versionManifestSchema = readSchema('registry-version-manifest.schema.json');
-  const validate = ajv.compile(versionManifestSchema);
-
-  const base = { name: 'core.openwop.forms', version: '1.0.0', engines: { openwop: '>=1.0.0' }, integrity: 'sha256-abc=' };
-  const template = {
-    templateId: 'core.openwop.form.rsvp',
-    version: '1.0.0',
-    label: 'RSVP',
-    title: 'Will you be joining us?',
-    fields: [{ id: 'guestName', type: 'text', label: 'Your name' }],
-  };
-
-  it('`form-content` is in the kind enum and `templates` is a declared property', () => {
-    const props = (versionManifestSchema.properties ?? {}) as Record<string, { enum?: string[] }>;
-    expect(props.kind?.enum, why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', '`form-content` joins the kind enum (RFC 0137)')).toEqual(
-      expect.arrayContaining(['node', 'artifact-type', 'connection', 'card', 'form-content']),
-    );
-    expect(!!props.templates, why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json', '`templates` payload property declared (additionalProperties:false)')).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('the `anyOf` payload gate carries a `templates` branch (NECESSARY — enum + property alone are not sufficient)', () => {
-    const anyOf = (versionManifestSchema.anyOf ?? []) as Array<{ required?: string[] }>;
-    expect(
-      anyOf.some((branch) => (branch.required ?? []).includes('templates')),
-      why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json §anyOf', 'without a `templates` branch every form-content manifest is rejected (RFC 0137 §Proposal 1)'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a published form-content version manifest validates (kind + templates, no runtime)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, kind: 'form-content', templates: [template] });
-    expect(ok, why('registry-operations.md §Validation flow', 'form-content manifest publishes (RFC 0137)')).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a form-content manifest carrying `runtime` is REJECTED (declarative kinds carry no runtime)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({ ...base, kind: 'form-content', templates: [template], runtime: { language: 'javascript' } });
-    expect(ok, why('registry-version-manifest.schema.json §allOf', 'a declarative kind MUST NOT carry runtime')).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('an unchanged node version manifest still validates (RFC 0137 is additive)', () => {
-    const ok = validate({
-      ...base,
-      runtime: { language: 'javascript' },
-      nodes: [{ typeId: 'core.openwop.x.n', version: '1.0.0', category: 'data', role: 'pure' }],
-    });
-    expect(ok, why('COMPATIBILITY.md §2.1', 'RFC 0137 is additive — node manifests validate unchanged')).toBe(true);
-  });
-});
-
-describe('form-content-packs: source manifest contract (RFC 0137, server-free)', () => {
-  const ajv = new Ajv2020({ allErrors: true, strict: false });
-  addFormats(ajv);
-  const sourceSchema = readSchema('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json');
-  const validate = ajv.compile(sourceSchema);
-
-  const pack = (templates: unknown[]): Record<string, unknown> => ({
-    name: 'core.openwop.forms.starters',
-    version: '1.0.0',
-    kind: 'form-content',
-    engines: { openwop: '>=1.1.0 <2.0.0' },
-    templates,
-  });
-  const field = (over: Record<string, unknown> = {}): Record<string, unknown> => ({
-    id: 'guestName',
-    type: 'text',
-    label: 'Your name',
-    ...over,
-  });
-  const template = (over: Record<string, unknown> = {}): Record<string, unknown> => ({
-    templateId: 'core.openwop.form.rsvp',
-    version: '1.0.0',
-    label: 'RSVP',
-    title: 'Will you be joining us?',
-    fields: [field()],
-    ...over,
-  });
-
-  it('schema discipline: draft 2020-12, canonical $id, closed objects', () => {
-    expect(sourceSchema.$schema, why('CONTRIBUTING.md §JSON Schemas', 'draft 2020-12')).toBe(
-      'https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema',
-    );
-    expect(sourceSchema.$id, why('CONTRIBUTING.md §JSON Schemas', 'canonical $id URL')).toBe(
-      'https://openwop.dev/spec/v1/form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json',
-    );
-    expect(sourceSchema.additionalProperties, why('CONTRIBUTING.md §JSON Schemas', 'additionalProperties:false')).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('a well-formed form-content pack validates', () => {
-    expect(validate(pack([template()])), why('form-content-packs.md §Manifest format', 'the canonical example validates')).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('the full portable field-type subset is accepted', () => {
-    for (const type of ['text', 'longtext', 'number', 'boolean', 'select', 'multiselect', 'file', 'artifact-ref']) {
-      expect(
-        validate(pack([template({ fields: [field({ type })] })])),
-        why('chat-card-packs.md §Input fields', `portable type \`${type}\` is accepted (RFC 0071 G9 subset)`),
-      ).toBe(true);
-    }
-  });
-
-  it('vendor.* and x- host extensions are accepted (other hosts degrade to plain text)', () => {
-    for (const type of ['vendor.myndhyve.color', 'x-signature-pad']) {
-      expect(
-        validate(pack([template({ fields: [field({ type })] })])),
-        why('form-content-packs.md §Field types', `host extension \`${type}\` is accepted`),
-      ).toBe(true);
-    }
-  });
-
-  it('`email` and `textarea` are REJECTED as field types (they are a format and a widget)', () => {
-    expect(
-      validate(pack([template({ fields: [field({ type: 'email' })] })])),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Validation formats are not types', '`email` is a format constraint, not a data kind — use text + format'),
-    ).toBe(false);
-    expect(
-      validate(pack([template({ fields: [field({ type: 'textarea' })] })])),
-      why('chat-card-packs.md §Input fields', '`textarea` is a widget name — the portable data kind is `longtext`'),
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('`format: "email"` on a text field IS accepted (the supported spelling)', () => {
-    expect(
-      validate(pack([template({ fields: [field({ id: 'email', type: 'text', format: 'email' })] })])),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Validation formats are not types', 'email validation rides `format`, not `type`'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a field using `key` instead of `id` is REJECTED (aligns with chat-card InputField.id)', () => {
-    const bad = { key: 'guestName', type: 'text', label: 'Your name' };
-    expect(
-      validate(pack([template({ fields: [bad] })])),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Manifest format', 'the field identifier is `id`, not `key`'),
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('an integer `templates[].version` is REJECTED (SemVer axis, not the integer schemaVersion axis)', () => {
-    expect(
-      validate(pack([template({ version: 3 })])),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Manifest format', '`templates[].version` is SemVer 2.0.0'),
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('an empty `fields[]` and an empty `templates[]` are REJECTED', () => {
-    expect(validate(pack([template({ fields: [] })])), why('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json', 'a template MUST declare ≥1 field')).toBe(false);
-    expect(validate(pack([])), why('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json', 'a pack MUST declare ≥1 template')).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('a `runtime` block is REJECTED at the source manifest too (the kind is inert)', () => {
-    expect(
-      validate({ ...pack([template()]), runtime: { language: 'javascript' } }),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Pack kind', 'a form-content pack carries no runtime'),
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-});
-
-describe('form-content-packs: a template carries NO submission routing (RFC 0137 §F2, invariant)', () => {
-  const ajv = new Ajv2020({ allErrors: true, strict: false });
-  addFormats(ajv);
-  const sourceSchema = readSchema('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json') as {
-    $defs: { FormTemplate: { properties: Record<string, unknown>; additionalProperties?: boolean } };
-  };
-  const validate = ajv.compile(sourceSchema);
-  const formDoc = V1_DIR ? readFileSync(join(V1_DIR, 'form-content-packs.md'), 'utf8') : '';
-
-  const withTemplateKey = (key: string, value: unknown): Record<string, unknown> => ({
-    name: 'core.openwop.forms.starters',
-    version: '1.0.0',
-    kind: 'form-content',
-    engines: { openwop: '>=1.1.0 <2.0.0' },
-    templates: [
-      {
-        templateId: 'core.openwop.form.rsvp',
-        version: '1.0.0',
-        label: 'RSVP',
-        title: 'RSVP',
-        fields: [{ id: 'a', type: 'text', label: 'A' }],
-        [key]: value,
-      },
-    ],
-  });
-
-  it('FormTemplate declares NO routing-shaped property and is closed', () => {
-    const props = Object.keys(sourceSchema.$defs.FormTemplate.properties);
-    for (const banned of ['intakeBinding', 'destination', 'webhook', 'webhookUrl', 'listId', 'mailbox', 'crmObject', 'routing', 'submitTo']) {
-      expect(props, why('form-content-packs.md §No submission routing', `FormTemplate MUST NOT declare a \`${banned}\` property`)).not.toContain(banned);
-    }
-    expect(
-      sourceSchema.$defs.FormTemplate.additionalProperties,
-      why('form-content-packs.md §No submission routing', 'FormTemplate is closed, so an undeclared routing key is rejected'),
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('a template attempting to carry routing config is REJECTED', () => {
-    for (const [key, value] of [
-      ['intakeBinding', { listId: 'abc' }],
-      ['destination', 'https://attacker.example/collect'],
-      ['webhookUrl', 'https://attacker.example/hook'],
-    ] as Array<[string, unknown]>) {
-      expect(
-        validate(withTemplateKey(key, value)),
-        why('form-content-packs.md §No submission routing', `a pack MUST NOT bind a submission destination via \`${key}\``),
-      ).toBe(false);
-    }
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('the spec scopes the routing ban to the PACK, leaving operator-configured routing free', () => {
-    expect(
-      /This constrains the pack, not the host/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §No submission routing', 'a host MAY route wherever its OPERATOR configures; only pack-declared routing is banned'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('the spec binds FUTURE routing surfaces to operator consent, not pack declaration', () => {
-    expect(
-      /MUST NOT let a pack bind a destination unilaterally|routing MUST be a host-side decision/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §No submission routing', 'a later routing RFC MUST keep the decision host-side, behind operator consent'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-});
-
-describe('form-content-packs: identifier uniqueness + resource bounds (RFC 0137 amendment)', () => {
-  const formDoc = V1_DIR ? readFileSync(join(V1_DIR, 'form-content-packs.md'), 'utf8') : '';
-  const sourceSchema = readSchema('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json') as {
-    properties: { templates: { maxItems: number } };
-    $defs: {
-      FormTemplate: { properties: { fields: { maxItems: number } } };
-      FormField: { properties: { label: { maxLength: number }; options: { maxItems: number } } };
-    };
-  };
-
-  it.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('duplicate `fields[].id` is a normative refusal, framed as data integrity', () => {
-    expect(
-      /each `fields\[\]\.id` MUST be unique within its template/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Unique identifiers', 'duplicate field ids MUST be refused'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-    expect(
-      /silently overwrite/i.test(formDoc),
-      why('form-content-packs.md §Unique identifiers', 'the rationale is silent data loss, not style'),
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('resource bounds admit real-world content (long consent labels, a country list)', () => {
-    expect(
-      sourceSchema.$defs.FormField.properties.label.maxLength,
-      why('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json', 'a lawful consent label is legitimately long-form'),
-    ).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(1000);
-    expect(
-      sourceSchema.$defs.FormField.properties.options.maxItems,
-      why('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json', 'a country list is ~195 entries — the cap must clear it'),
-    ).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(250);
-  });
-
-  it('outer resource caps exist on both arrays (render-bomb guard, not product policy)', () => {
-    expect(sourceSchema.properties.templates.maxItems, why('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json', 'templates[] carries an outer cap')).toBeGreaterThan(0);
-    expect(sourceSchema.$defs.FormTemplate.properties.fields.maxItems, why('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json', 'fields[] carries an outer cap')).toBeGreaterThan(0);
-  });
-});
-
-describe('form-content-packs: the field vocabulary is SHARED with chat-card packs, not forked (RFC 0137 R2)', () => {
-  const formSchema = readSchema('form-content-pack-manifest.schema.json') as {
-    $defs: { FormField: { properties: { type: { pattern: string } } } };
-  };
-  const cardSchema = readSchema('chat-card-pack-manifest.schema.json') as {
-    $defs: { InputField: { properties: { type: { pattern: string } } } };
-  };
-
-  it('`fields[].type` and `inputs[].type` share one byte-identical pattern', () => {
-    const formPattern = formSchema.$defs.FormField.properties.type.pattern;
-    const cardPattern = cardSchema.$defs.InputField.properties.type.pattern;
-    expect(
-      formPattern,
-      why(
-        'form-content-packs.md §Field types',
-        'RFC 0137 reuses the RFC 0071 portable subset VERBATIM — two input-collecting declarative kinds MUST agree on what a field type means. If this fails, one kind\'s vocabulary was widened without the other and the wire contract has forked.',
-      ),
-    ).toBe(cardPattern);
-  });
-
-  it('the shared pattern still admits every portable data kind and both extension prefixes', () => {
-    const pattern = new RegExp(formSchema.$defs.FormField.properties.type.pattern);
-    for (const type of ['text', 'longtext', 'number', 'boolean', 'select', 'multiselect', 'file', 'artifact-ref']) {
-      expect(pattern.test(type), why('chat-card-packs.md §Input fields', `\`${type}\` is in the portable subset`)).toBe(true);
-    }
-    expect(pattern.test('vendor.acme.rating'), why('chat-card-packs.md §Input fields', 'vendor.<org>.<kind> extensions are admitted')).toBe(true);
-    expect(pattern.test('x-rating'), why('chat-card-packs.md §Input fields', 'x-<kind> extensions are admitted')).toBe(true);
-    expect(pattern.test('textarea'), why('chat-card-packs.md §Input fields', 'widget names are NOT in the subset')).toBe(false);
-  });
-});

package/src/scenarios/multi-region-effect-vocabulary.test.ts

@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
-/**
- * RFC 0150 §D — record reconciliation and effect authorization are separate
- * claims, and the capability vocabulary must not conflate them.
- *
- * Two defects, both in the corpus rather than in any host.
- *
- * 1. `crossRegion` read as a safety ladder while meaning something else at the
- *    top. `schemas/capabilities.schema.json` documented `strict` as
- *    "cross-region read-visibility is bounded by
- *    `multiRegion.replicationLagBoundMs`" — a LATENCY claim. A host can
- *    replicate synchronously at 0 ms and still issue duplicate external effects
- *    from two regions, because knowing what the other region wrote is not the
- *    same as being authorized to act. `strict` therefore sat at the top of an
- *    enum implementers read as an effect-safety claim while promising nothing
- *    about effects. Its latency content already had its own field, so it is
- *    removed rather than renamed: `fenced-effects` is a genuinely stronger
- *    property, and promoting existing `strict` advertisements into it by rename
- *    would assert evidence no host has produced.
- *
- * 2. `partitionRecoveryStrategy` offering rules the annex forbids.
- *    `spec/v1/idempotency.md` §"Guarantees under partition" MUSTs lex-min(runId)
- *    convergence, "deterministic without coordination", and the `multiRegion`
- *    block MUSTs that "re-running the same conflict input MUST produce the same
- *    survivor". Both `last-writer-wins` and `first-writer-wins` are time-ordered:
- *    under a partition there is no shared clock, so both regions believe they
- *    wrote last (or first), and neither can produce a reproducible survivor.
- *    They also select a different survivor than the lex-min rule the same
- *    document requires. The schema was advertising strategies that violate two
- *    MUSTs already in force. RFC 0150 §D names only `last-writer-wins`; leaving
- *    `first-writer-wins` would keep the identical defect under a different label.
- *
- * This gate reads the schema and the prose. It observes no host, and says
- * nothing about whether any engine fences correctly — that is gap G10.
- *
- * `spec/v1/` ships in the repository and NOT in the published tarball, so the
- * prose legs self-skip under the published layout; the schema ships in both.
- */
-
-import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
-import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
-import { join, resolve as pathResolve } from 'node:path';
-import { V1_DIR } from '../lib/paths.js';
-
-const SCHEMA_PATH =
-  V1_DIR === null ? null : pathResolve(V1_DIR, '..', '..', 'schemas', 'capabilities.schema.json');
-
-interface EnumLike {
-  readonly enum?: readonly string[];
-  readonly anyOf?: readonly EnumLike[];
-  readonly properties?: Record<string, EnumLike>;
-}
-
-function idempotencyCaps(): EnumLike | null {
-  if (SCHEMA_PATH === null) return null;
-  const schema = JSON.parse(readFileSync(SCHEMA_PATH, 'utf8')) as {
-    properties?: Record<string, EnumLike>;
-  };
-  return schema.properties?.['idempotency'] ?? null;
-}
-
-/** Every literal in an `enum`, including those nested under `anyOf`. */
-function literals(node: EnumLike | undefined): string[] {
-  if (node === undefined) return [];
-  return [...(node.enum ?? []), ...(node.anyOf ?? []).flatMap(literals)];
-}
-
-describe.skipIf(V1_DIR === null)('RFC 0150 §D — multi-region effect vocabulary', () => {
-  const idem = idempotencyCaps();
-  const doc = V1_DIR === null ? '' : readFileSync(join(V1_DIR as string, 'idempotency.md'), 'utf8');
-
-  it('the idempotency capability family is found at all', () => {
-    // Guard: a lookup that silently returned null would make every leg below
-    // vacuously true — the failure RFC 0148 exists to close.
-    expect(idem, 'capabilities.schema.json MUST declare an `idempotency` family').not.toBeNull();
-    expect(
-      literals(idem?.properties?.['crossRegion']).length,
-      'the `crossRegion` enum MUST be non-empty',
-    ).toBeGreaterThan(0);
-  });
-
-  it('crossRegion offers the three RFC 0150 §D postures', () => {
-    const values = literals(idem?.properties?.['crossRegion']);
-    expect(
-      [...values].sort(),
-      'RFC 0150 §D: the canonical postures are `single-region` (no cross-region guarantee), ' +
-        '`reconciled-records` (records converge, effects may remain at-least-once), and ' +
-        '`fenced-effects` (records converge AND every effect is fenced or provider-idempotent).',
-    ).toEqual(['fenced-effects', 'reconciled-records', 'single-region']);
-  });
-
-  it('crossRegion does not carry `strict`, which was a latency claim in a safety slot', () => {
-    const values = literals(idem?.properties?.['crossRegion']);
-    expect(
-      values.includes('strict'),
-      'RFC 0150 §D: `strict` promised bounded read-visibility, not effect authorization — a host ' +
-        'replicating at 0 ms can still issue duplicate effects from two regions. Its latency ' +
-        'content belongs to `multiRegion.replicationLagBoundMs`, which already carries it.',
-    ).toBe(false);
-  });
-
-  it('partitionRecoveryStrategy offers no time-ordered rule', () => {
-    const values = literals(idem?.properties?.['multiRegion']?.properties?.['partitionRecoveryStrategy']);
-    const timeOrdered = values.filter((v) => v === 'last-writer-wins' || v === 'first-writer-wins');
-    expect(
-      timeOrdered,
-      'RFC 0150 §D: under a partition there is no shared clock, so a time-ordered rule cannot ' +
-        'satisfy the annex MUST that "re-running the same conflict input MUST produce the same ' +
-        'survivor", and it selects a different survivor than the lex-min(runId) rule the same ' +
-        'document requires. Removing only `last-writer-wins` leaves the identical defect under ' +
-        `a different label. Found: ${timeOrdered.join(', ')}`,
-    ).toEqual([]);
-  });
-
-  it('partitionRecoveryStrategy names the rule the annex actually requires', () => {
-    const values = literals(idem?.properties?.['multiRegion']?.properties?.['partitionRecoveryStrategy']);
-    expect(
-      values,
-      'the annex MUSTs lex-min(runId) convergence, so that rule MUST be nameable in the ' +
-        'advertisement rather than reachable only through a vendor `x-host-*` extension.',
-    ).toContain('lexicographic-min-run-id');
-  });
-
-  it('the spec states that reconciliation does not authorize effects', () => {
-    const plain = doc.replace(/[`*_]/g, '').replace(/\s+/g, ' ');
-    expect(
-      /MUST NOT authorize effects/.test(plain),
-      'RFC 0150 §D: run-record reconciliation and permission to issue effects are separate. ' +
-        'Lexicographic run-ID reconciliation MAY select a surviving record but MUST NOT ' +
-        'authorize an external effect — the sentence the whole section rests on.',
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('a host that can neither fence nor rely on provider dedup must say so', () => {
-    const plain = doc.replace(/[`*_]/g, '').replace(/\s+/g, ' ');
-    expect(
-      /at-least-once-risk/.test(plain),
-      'RFC 0150 §D: absent a fencing token or a provider guaranteeing duplicate suppression, a ' +
-        'host MUST NOT claim strict multi-region effect safety and MUST classify the effect as ' +
-        '`at-least-once-risk`. An unclassifiable risk is the one operators cannot plan around.',
-    ).toBe(true);
-  });
-
-  it('the capability advertisement example parses as JSON', () => {
-    // RFC 0149 §B found this and deliberately left it: the annex's example is
-    // fenced as ```json while containing `"single-region" | "best-effort" |
-    // "strict"`, which no parser accepts. An example that cannot parse is
-    // exactly what RFC 0150 §D's extraction requirement exists to catch.
-    const lines = doc.split('\n');
-    const blocks: { line: number; body: string }[] = [];
-    for (let i = 0; i < lines.length; i++) {
-      if (lines[i]!.trim() !== '```json') continue;
-      const body: string[] = [];
-      let j = i + 1;
-      while (j < lines.length && lines[j]!.trim() !== '```') body.push(lines[j++]!);
-      blocks.push({ line: i + 2, body: body.join('\n') });
-      i = j;
-    }
-    expect(blocks.length, 'idempotency.md MUST contain fenced json examples to check').toBeGreaterThan(0);
-    const unparseable = blocks
-      .filter((b) => {
-        try {
-          JSON.parse(b.body);
-          return false;
-        } catch {
-          return true;
-        }
-      })
-      .map((b) => `spec/v1/idempotency.md:${b.line}`);
-    expect(
-      unparseable,
-      'a block fenced as ```json MUST parse as JSON. Union-type notation belongs in prose or a ' +
-        '```text fence.\n  ' + unparseable.join('\n  '),
-    ).toEqual([]);
-  });
-});