tribunal-kit 9.2.6 → 9.2.7

package/src/synthesis/claim_check_separator.js

@@ -1,271 +1,294 @@
-'use strict';
-
-/**
- * claim_check_separator.js — Strict Separation of Implementation Checks vs Evidence Claims
- * =========================================================================================
- * System-1 Capability 3:
- * Separates what Tribunal Kit actually verified by deterministic execution from what
- * an AI reviewer merely claimed.
- *
- * Directives:
- * 1. Never represent an evidence claim as a verified implementation fact.
- * 2. Synthesis distinguishes VERIFIED from CLAIMED.
- * 3. Preserve provenance for every check and claim.
- * 4. Do not fabricate confidence scores (if unavailable, mark as 'UNAVAILABLE').
- * 5. Resolve conflicts deterministically (verified execution > AI claims).
- */
-
-const crypto = require('crypto');
-
-/**
- * Creates a verified implementation check record.
- * Must be produced by deterministic executable verification.
- */
-function createImplementationCheck({
-  check,
-  command = null,
-  result,
-  details = null,
-  timestamp = null,
-  runId = null,
-}) {
-  if (!check || typeof check !== 'string') {
-    throw new Error('Implementation check must specify a valid check name.');
-  }
-
-  const normalizedResult = String(result).toUpperCase();
-  if (!['PASSED', 'FAILED', 'ERROR'].includes(normalizedResult)) {
-    throw new Error(`Invalid check result: ${result}. Must be PASSED, FAILED, or ERROR.`);
-  }
-
-  const ts = timestamp || new Date().toISOString();
-  const id = runId || `chk_${crypto.randomBytes(6).toString('hex')}`;
-
-  return {
-    check,
-    command: command || null,
-    result: normalizedResult,
-    details: details || null,
-    timestamp: ts,
-    run_id: id,
-    provenance: {
-      type: 'IMPLEMENTATION_CHECK',
-      command: command || null,
-      timestamp: ts,
-      run_id: id,
-      verified_by: 'executable_runner',
-    },
-  };
-}
-
-/**
- * Creates an evidence claim record.
- * Produced by LLM or inferred from non-executable review.
- */
-function createEvidenceClaim({
-  claimId = null,
-  reviewer,
-  source = null,
-  file = null,
-  line = null,
-  evidence = null,
-  assertion,
-  category = 'general',
-  confidence = 'UNAVAILABLE',
-}) {
-  if (!reviewer || typeof reviewer !== 'string') {
-    throw new Error('Evidence claim must specify a reviewer name.');
-  }
-  if (!assertion || typeof assertion !== 'string') {
-    throw new Error('Evidence claim must specify an assertion statement.');
-  }
-
-  const id = claimId || `clm_${crypto.randomBytes(6).toString('hex')}`;
-
-  let normConfidence = 'UNAVAILABLE';
-  if (confidence !== 'UNAVAILABLE' && confidence !== null && confidence !== undefined) {
-    if (typeof confidence === 'number' && !isNaN(confidence) && confidence >= 0 && confidence <= 1) {
-      normConfidence = parseFloat(confidence.toFixed(2));
-    } else if (typeof confidence === 'string' && ['L1', 'L2', 'L3', 'L4', 'L5'].includes(confidence.toUpperCase())) {
-      normConfidence = confidence.toUpperCase();
-    }
-  }
-
-  return {
-    claim_id: id,
-    reviewer,
-    source: source || reviewer,
-    assertion,
-    category,
-    status: 'CLAIMED', // Claims can never initialize as VERIFIED
-    confidence: normConfidence,
-    provenance: {
-      reviewer,
-      source: source || reviewer,
-      file: file || null,
-      line: typeof line === 'number' ? line : null,
-      evidence: evidence || null,
-    },
-  };
-}
-
-/**
- * Correlates and synthesizes implementation checks with reviewer claims.
- */
-function synthesizeReviewResults({
-  checks = [],
-  claims = [],
-  runId = null,
-  timestamp = null,
-}) {
-  const ts = timestamp || new Date().toISOString();
-  const synthesisId = runId || `syn_${crypto.randomBytes(6).toString('hex')}`;
-
-  const validChecks = checks.map(c => (c.provenance ? c : createImplementationCheck(c)));
-  const validClaims = claims.map(c => (c.provenance ? c : createEvidenceClaim(c)));
-
-  const conflicts = [];
-  const verifiedItems = [];
-  const claimedItems = [];
-
-  // Categorize checks
-  const passedChecks = validChecks.filter(c => c.result === 'PASSED');
-  const failedChecks = validChecks.filter(c => c.result === 'FAILED' || c.result === 'ERROR');
-
-  for (const check of passedChecks) {
-    verifiedItems.push({
-      item: check.check,
-      status: 'VERIFIED',
-      provenance: check.provenance,
-    });
-  }
-
-  // Detect conflicts between checks and claims
-  for (const claim of validClaims) {
-    const claimText = (claim.assertion + ' ' + (claim.provenance?.evidence || '')).toLowerCase();
-
-    // Conflict Scenario 1: Check passed but reviewer claims failure/vulnerability in that area
-    if (claim.category === 'test' && claimText.includes('fail') && passedChecks.some(c => c.check === 'tests_passed')) {
-      conflicts.push({
-        type: 'CHECK_PASSED_CLAIM_FAILED',
-        description: `Reviewer ${claim.reviewer} claimed tests failed, but tests_passed check PASSED deterministically.`,
-        check: 'tests_passed',
-        claim_id: claim.claim_id,
-        resolution: 'DETERMINISTIC_CHECK_PRESERVED',
-      });
-      claim.status = 'CLAIM_OVERRULED_BY_CHECK';
-    } else if (claim.category === 'lint' && claimText.includes('fail') && passedChecks.some(c => c.check === 'lint_passed')) {
-      conflicts.push({
-        type: 'CHECK_PASSED_CLAIM_FAILED',
-        description: `Reviewer ${claim.reviewer} claimed lint failed, but lint_passed check PASSED deterministically.`,
-        check: 'lint_passed',
-        claim_id: claim.claim_id,
-        resolution: 'DETERMINISTIC_CHECK_PRESERVED',
-      });
-      claim.status = 'CLAIM_OVERRULED_BY_CHECK';
-    }
-
-    // Conflict Scenario 2: Check failed but reviewer claims success or approves
-    if (claimText.includes('passed') || claimText.includes('success') || claimText.includes('approved')) {
-      const relatedFailedCheck = failedChecks.find(fc => {
-        const checkBase = fc.check.replace('_passed', '').toLowerCase();
-        const checkSpace = checkBase.replace(/_/g, ' ');
-        return (
-          claimText.includes(checkBase) ||
-          claimText.includes(checkSpace) ||
-          (claim.category && claim.category.toLowerCase().includes(checkBase.split('_')[0]))
-        );
-      });
-      if (relatedFailedCheck) {
-        conflicts.push({
-          type: 'CHECK_FAILED_CLAIM_PASSED',
-          description: `Reviewer ${claim.reviewer} claimed success, but ${relatedFailedCheck.check} FAILED. Reviewer claim cannot override failing check.`,
-          check: relatedFailedCheck.check,
-          claim_id: claim.claim_id,
-          resolution: 'CHECK_FAILURE_ENFORCED',
-        });
-        claim.status = 'CLAIM_REJECTED_CHECK_FAILED';
-      }
-    }
-
-    // Add to claimedItems preserving claim status and provenance
-    claimedItems.push({
-      claim_id: claim.claim_id,
-      reviewer: claim.reviewer,
-      assertion: claim.assertion,
-      status: claim.status,
-      confidence: claim.confidence,
-      provenance: claim.provenance,
-    });
-  }
-
-  // Detect reviewer vs reviewer conflicts on same file:line
-  const claimMap = new Map();
-  for (const claim of validClaims) {
-    const loc = claim.provenance?.file
-      ? `${claim.provenance.file}:${claim.provenance.line || 0}`
-      : null;
-    if (loc) {
-      if (!claimMap.has(loc)) claimMap.set(loc, []);
-      claimMap.get(loc).push(claim);
-    }
-  }
-
-  for (const [loc, locClaims] of claimMap.entries()) {
-    if (locClaims.length >= 2) {
-      const revA = locClaims[0];
-      const revB = locClaims[1];
-      const textA = revA.assertion.toLowerCase();
-      const textB = revB.assertion.toLowerCase();
-
-      const aSaysIssue = textA.includes('vulnerab') || textA.includes('insecure') || textA.includes('bug') || textA.includes('error');
-      const bSaysSafe = textB.includes('safe') || textB.includes('correct') || textB.includes('approved') || textB.includes('clean');
-
-      if ((aSaysIssue && bSaysSafe) || (textA.includes('safe') && textB.includes('bug'))) {
-        conflicts.push({
-          type: 'REVIEWER_OPPOSITE_CLAIMS',
-          description: `Reviewer ${revA.reviewer} and ${revB.reviewer} make opposite claims regarding ${loc}.`,
-          location: loc,
-          claim_ids: [revA.claim_id, revB.claim_id],
-          resolution: 'UNVERIFIED_CONFLICT_PRESERVED',
-        });
-        revA.status = 'CLAIM_CONFLICT';
-        revB.status = 'CLAIM_CONFLICT';
-      }
-    }
-  }
-
-  // Compute final verdict
-  let verdict = 'VERIFIED';
-  if (failedChecks.length > 0) {
-    verdict = 'FAILED_CHECKS';
-  } else if (conflicts.length > 0) {
-    verdict = 'CONFLICT';
-  } else if (verifiedItems.length === 0 && claimedItems.length > 0) {
-    verdict = 'CLAIMED';
-  }
-
-  return {
-    synthesis_id: synthesisId,
-    timestamp: ts,
-    checks: validChecks,
-    claims: validClaims,
-    summary: {
-      total_checks: validChecks.length,
-      passed_checks: passedChecks.length,
-      failed_checks: failedChecks.length,
-      total_claims: validClaims.length,
-      conflict_count: conflicts.length,
-      verdict,
-    },
-    verified_items: verifiedItems,
-    claimed_items: claimedItems,
-    conflicts,
-  };
-}
-
-module.exports = {
-  createImplementationCheck,
-  createEvidenceClaim,
-  synthesizeReviewResults,
-};
+'use strict';
+
+/**
+ * claim_check_separator.js — Strict Separation of Implementation Checks vs Evidence Claims
+ * =========================================================================================
+ * System-1 Capability 3:
+ * Separates what Tribunal Kit actually verified by deterministic execution from what
+ * an AI reviewer merely claimed.
+ *
+ * Directives:
+ * 1. Never represent an evidence claim as a verified implementation fact.
+ * 2. Synthesis distinguishes VERIFIED from CLAIMED.
+ * 3. Preserve provenance for every check and claim.
+ * 4. Do not fabricate confidence scores (if unavailable, mark as 'UNAVAILABLE').
+ * 5. Resolve conflicts deterministically (verified execution > AI claims).
+ */
+
+const crypto = require('crypto');
+
+/**
+ * Creates a verified implementation check record.
+ * Must be produced by deterministic executable verification.
+ */
+function createImplementationCheck({
+  check,
+  command = null,
+  result,
+  details = null,
+  timestamp = null,
+  runId = null,
+}) {
+  if (!check || typeof check !== 'string') {
+    throw new Error('Implementation check must specify a valid check name.');
+  }
+
+  const normalizedResult = String(result).toUpperCase();
+  if (!['PASSED', 'FAILED', 'ERROR'].includes(normalizedResult)) {
+    throw new Error(`Invalid check result: ${result}. Must be PASSED, FAILED, or ERROR.`);
+  }
+
+  const ts = timestamp || new Date().toISOString();
+  const id = runId || `chk_${crypto.randomBytes(6).toString('hex')}`;
+
+  return {
+    check,
+    command: command || null,
+    result: normalizedResult,
+    details: details || null,
+    timestamp: ts,
+    run_id: id,
+    provenance: {
+      type: 'IMPLEMENTATION_CHECK',
+      command: command || null,
+      timestamp: ts,
+      run_id: id,
+      verified_by: 'executable_runner',
+    },
+  };
+}
+
+/**
+ * Creates an evidence claim record.
+ * Produced by LLM or inferred from non-executable review.
+ */
+function createEvidenceClaim({
+  claimId = null,
+  reviewer,
+  source = null,
+  file = null,
+  line = null,
+  evidence = null,
+  assertion,
+  category = 'general',
+  confidence = 'UNAVAILABLE',
+}) {
+  if (!reviewer || typeof reviewer !== 'string') {
+    throw new Error('Evidence claim must specify a reviewer name.');
+  }
+  if (!assertion || typeof assertion !== 'string') {
+    throw new Error('Evidence claim must specify an assertion statement.');
+  }
+
+  const id = claimId || `clm_${crypto.randomBytes(6).toString('hex')}`;
+
+  let normConfidence = 'UNAVAILABLE';
+  if (confidence !== 'UNAVAILABLE' && confidence !== null && confidence !== undefined) {
+    if (
+      typeof confidence === 'number' &&
+      !isNaN(confidence) &&
+      confidence >= 0 &&
+      confidence <= 1
+    ) {
+      normConfidence = parseFloat(confidence.toFixed(2));
+    } else if (
+      typeof confidence === 'string' &&
+      ['L1', 'L2', 'L3', 'L4', 'L5'].includes(confidence.toUpperCase())
+    ) {
+      normConfidence = confidence.toUpperCase();
+    }
+  }
+
+  return {
+    claim_id: id,
+    reviewer,
+    source: source || reviewer,
+    assertion,
+    category,
+    status: 'CLAIMED', // Claims can never initialize as VERIFIED
+    confidence: normConfidence,
+    provenance: {
+      reviewer,
+      source: source || reviewer,
+      file: file || null,
+      line: typeof line === 'number' ? line : null,
+      evidence: evidence || null,
+    },
+  };
+}
+
+/**
+ * Correlates and synthesizes implementation checks with reviewer claims.
+ */
+function synthesizeReviewResults({ checks = [], claims = [], runId = null, timestamp = null }) {
+  const ts = timestamp || new Date().toISOString();
+  const synthesisId = runId || `syn_${crypto.randomBytes(6).toString('hex')}`;
+
+  const validChecks = checks.map(c => (c.provenance ? c : createImplementationCheck(c)));
+  const validClaims = claims.map(c => (c.provenance ? c : createEvidenceClaim(c)));
+
+  const conflicts = [];
+  const verifiedItems = [];
+  const claimedItems = [];
+
+  // Categorize checks
+  const passedChecks = validChecks.filter(c => c.result === 'PASSED');
+  const failedChecks = validChecks.filter(c => c.result === 'FAILED' || c.result === 'ERROR');
+
+  for (const check of passedChecks) {
+    verifiedItems.push({
+      item: check.check,
+      status: 'VERIFIED',
+      provenance: check.provenance,
+    });
+  }
+
+  // Detect conflicts between checks and claims
+  for (const claim of validClaims) {
+    const claimText = (claim.assertion + ' ' + (claim.provenance?.evidence || '')).toLowerCase();
+
+    // Conflict Scenario 1: Check passed but reviewer claims failure/vulnerability in that area
+    if (
+      claim.category === 'test' &&
+      claimText.includes('fail') &&
+      passedChecks.some(c => c.check === 'tests_passed')
+    ) {
+      conflicts.push({
+        type: 'CHECK_PASSED_CLAIM_FAILED',
+        description: `Reviewer ${claim.reviewer} claimed tests failed, but tests_passed check PASSED deterministically.`,
+        check: 'tests_passed',
+        claim_id: claim.claim_id,
+        resolution: 'DETERMINISTIC_CHECK_PRESERVED',
+      });
+      claim.status = 'CLAIM_OVERRULED_BY_CHECK';
+    } else if (
+      claim.category === 'lint' &&
+      claimText.includes('fail') &&
+      passedChecks.some(c => c.check === 'lint_passed')
+    ) {
+      conflicts.push({
+        type: 'CHECK_PASSED_CLAIM_FAILED',
+        description: `Reviewer ${claim.reviewer} claimed lint failed, but lint_passed check PASSED deterministically.`,
+        check: 'lint_passed',
+        claim_id: claim.claim_id,
+        resolution: 'DETERMINISTIC_CHECK_PRESERVED',
+      });
+      claim.status = 'CLAIM_OVERRULED_BY_CHECK';
+    }
+
+    // Conflict Scenario 2: Check failed but reviewer claims success or approves
+    if (
+      claimText.includes('passed') ||
+      claimText.includes('success') ||
+      claimText.includes('approved')
+    ) {
+      const relatedFailedCheck = failedChecks.find(fc => {
+        const checkBase = fc.check.replace('_passed', '').toLowerCase();
+        const checkSpace = checkBase.replace(/_/g, ' ');
+        return (
+          claimText.includes(checkBase) ||
+          claimText.includes(checkSpace) ||
+          (claim.category && claim.category.toLowerCase().includes(checkBase.split('_')[0]))
+        );
+      });
+      if (relatedFailedCheck) {
+        conflicts.push({
+          type: 'CHECK_FAILED_CLAIM_PASSED',
+          description: `Reviewer ${claim.reviewer} claimed success, but ${relatedFailedCheck.check} FAILED. Reviewer claim cannot override failing check.`,
+          check: relatedFailedCheck.check,
+          claim_id: claim.claim_id,
+          resolution: 'CHECK_FAILURE_ENFORCED',
+        });
+        claim.status = 'CLAIM_REJECTED_CHECK_FAILED';
+      }
+    }
+
+    // Add to claimedItems preserving claim status and provenance
+    claimedItems.push({
+      claim_id: claim.claim_id,
+      reviewer: claim.reviewer,
+      assertion: claim.assertion,
+      status: claim.status,
+      confidence: claim.confidence,
+      provenance: claim.provenance,
+    });
+  }
+
+  // Detect reviewer vs reviewer conflicts on same file:line
+  const claimMap = new Map();
+  for (const claim of validClaims) {
+    const loc = claim.provenance?.file
+      ? `${claim.provenance.file}:${claim.provenance.line || 0}`
+      : null;
+    if (loc) {
+      if (!claimMap.has(loc)) claimMap.set(loc, []);
+      claimMap.get(loc).push(claim);
+    }
+  }
+
+  for (const [loc, locClaims] of claimMap.entries()) {
+    if (locClaims.length >= 2) {
+      const revA = locClaims[0];
+      const revB = locClaims[1];
+      const textA = revA.assertion.toLowerCase();
+      const textB = revB.assertion.toLowerCase();
+
+      const aSaysIssue =
+        textA.includes('vulnerab') ||
+        textA.includes('insecure') ||
+        textA.includes('bug') ||
+        textA.includes('error');
+      const bSaysSafe =
+        textB.includes('safe') ||
+        textB.includes('correct') ||
+        textB.includes('approved') ||
+        textB.includes('clean');
+
+      if ((aSaysIssue && bSaysSafe) || (textA.includes('safe') && textB.includes('bug'))) {
+        conflicts.push({
+          type: 'REVIEWER_OPPOSITE_CLAIMS',
+          description: `Reviewer ${revA.reviewer} and ${revB.reviewer} make opposite claims regarding ${loc}.`,
+          location: loc,
+          claim_ids: [revA.claim_id, revB.claim_id],
+          resolution: 'UNVERIFIED_CONFLICT_PRESERVED',
+        });
+        revA.status = 'CLAIM_CONFLICT';
+        revB.status = 'CLAIM_CONFLICT';
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  // Compute final verdict
+  let verdict = 'VERIFIED';
+  if (failedChecks.length > 0) {
+    verdict = 'FAILED_CHECKS';
+  } else if (conflicts.length > 0) {
+    verdict = 'CONFLICT';
+  } else if (verifiedItems.length === 0 && claimedItems.length > 0) {
+    verdict = 'CLAIMED';
+  }
+
+  return {
+    synthesis_id: synthesisId,
+    timestamp: ts,
+    checks: validChecks,
+    claims: validClaims,
+    summary: {
+      total_checks: validChecks.length,
+      passed_checks: passedChecks.length,
+      failed_checks: failedChecks.length,
+      total_claims: validClaims.length,
+      conflict_count: conflicts.length,
+      verdict,
+    },
+    verified_items: verifiedItems,
+    claimed_items: claimedItems,
+    conflicts,
+  };
+}
+
+module.exports = {
+  createImplementationCheck,
+  createEvidenceClaim,
+  synthesizeReviewResults,
+};