docs: spec, plan and outcome of the .claude instruction-surface audit

Nothing checked the agents, workflows and skills against the code they describe, and
the surface had drifted into stating incompatible rules. This records the protocol
that found the defects and what it cost.

Method: parallel subagents extract every falsifiable claim into JSONL ledgers; a
validator re-reads each cited line and rejects any ledger whose quoted text is not
there, so an extractor that paraphrases or hallucinates fails a script rather than
reaching the verification queue - 1,387 claims, zero such failures. Verification runs
only in the main session, and the same gate pointed at `citation` then checks the
verifier's own work. Hard-earned evidence is source of truth: code is authoritative
about code, experience about hardware, so claims get a fourth verdict, EARNED, and
"no backing found" is never grounds for deletion. All 1,387 claims carry a verdict;
the behavior sweep deliberately never emits CONFIRMED from a token match, because
finding a claim's vocabulary proves presence, not truth.

Every real defect came from cross-document comparison - none from any mechanical
pass. A path-existence lint was built, measured (11 flags on the audited tree, all
false positives, and the target defect is lexically identical to correct text
elsewhere), and rejected; recorded so nobody rebuilds it.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions