okstra 0.140.0 → 0.141.0

package/runtime/validators/validate_improvement_report.py

@@ -181,10 +181,13 @@ def _check_candidate_row(
     errors: list[str],
 ) -> None:
     """Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 — validate a single candidate row."""
-    if len(row) != 10:
-        errors.append(f"row {idx} has {len(row)} columns, expected 10")
+    if len(row) != 11:
+        errors.append(f"row {idx} has {len(row)} columns, expected 11")
         return
-    cand_id, lens_cell, _title, scope, _sev, _eff, consensus, source_workers, next_phase, _evidence = row
+    (
+        cand_id, lens_cell, _title, scope, _sev, _eff,
+        consensus, source_workers, next_phase, expected_after, _evidence,
+    ) = row
 
     if not _CAND_ID_RE.match(cand_id):
         errors.append(f"row {idx}: Cand ID '{cand_id}' must match I-NNN")
@@ -209,6 +212,15 @@ def _check_candidate_row(
     if next_phase not in _NEXT_PHASES:
         errors.append(f"row {idx}: Recommended next-phase '{next_phase}' must be one of {_NEXT_PHASES}")
 
+    # A candidate nobody can describe an observable change for is not a finding;
+    # it is a preference. Making this a cell rather than prose is what stops the
+    # candidate list from growing past what a downstream brief can pin.
+    if not expected_after.strip():
+        errors.append(
+            f"row {idx}: `Expected behavior after` is empty — state what becomes "
+            "observably different once this candidate is applied, or drop the row"
+        )
+
 
 def _check_candidate_rows(
     data_rows: list[list[str]],
@@ -233,7 +245,8 @@ def _check_candidates_table(
     header, *data = rows
     expected_columns = [
         "Cand ID", "Lens", "Title", "Scope", "Severity", "Effort",
-        "Consensus", "Source workers", "Recommended next-phase", "Evidence",
+        "Consensus", "Source workers", "Recommended next-phase",
+        "Expected behavior after", "Evidence",
     ]
     if header != expected_columns:
         errors.append(