RED pre-registration — plan-does-not-contradict-itself

verdict: PENDING evidence_class: pending

RED pre-registration — plan-does-not-contradict-itself

• Gate name (ledger name): plan-does-not-contradict-itself
• Registry id: plan-consistency — viewer/gate_registry.json:168-172
• Phase: Phase 9 remediation, Wave 3 (viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs:1-2)
• Pre-registered: 2026-08-01
• Runner: viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs
• CI: ci: true
• Subject under test: evidence/remediation/phase9_plan.json

What this document is, and what it is not

This is a transcription, not a judgement. The gate is registered in viewer/gate_registry.json and has no row in evidence/gates.ndjson; the blocker is the empty receipt_path the schema requires (viewer/lab/desk.cjs:317-322, production/schemas/gate_row.schema.json:8).

Every condition below is quoted verbatim, with path:line locators. Appending the ledger row is S4 — the operator's alone.

Motivation (verbatim from the runner)

viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs:5-20

// WHY THIS EXISTS
// ----------------
// `evidence/remediation/phase9_plan.json` is not a document — it is the artifact UNI TRACK renders
// live and Gaia projects verbatim. On 2026-07-28 a sweep read it end to end and found:
//
//   · `recommended_next_act` still said "Open the next pass with L0 ALONE ... ZERO NODES", SIX
//     build-commits after L0 shipped, while its sibling `next_build` correctly said L6. THE SINGLE
//     SOURCE OF TRUTH CONTAINED TWO DIFFERENT NEXT ACTS. A reader trusting the first would have
//     rebuilt a finished build from scratch.
//   · build L6 carried an id and a title and NO `status` KEY AT ALL — the only object in the file
//     like that. Absent is not PLANNED; a consumer testing `status == "PLANNED"` gets undefined.
//   · a key named `status` held a prose paragraph, outside the plan's own declared vocabulary — the
//     precise thing step 3.3's `status_correction` field warns against.
//   · two path strings lacked their `hierarchical-aif/` prefix and resolved from neither repository.
//
// None of that was catchable, because nothing read the plan except humans and renderers. A file that
// everything downstream trusts and nothing checks is the definition of an unguarded claim.

PASS condition (verbatim)

The runner states no PASS — sentence. Its only stated PASS condition is the mechanical exit-code law at viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs:27:

// Usage: node viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs      exit 0 = PASS, 1 = FAIL.

The substantive statement of scope is at viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs:22-25:

// WHAT THIS DOES NOT DO: it does not judge whether a status is CORRECT. Whether 4.6 is really
// IN_PROGRESS is a matter of fact about the world, and no scan can settle it. This checks that the
// file is INTERNALLY COHERENT and that everything it points at exists — which is the part a machine
// can hold, stated as exactly that much.

For the ledger row's pass_condition field:

This checks that the file is INTERNALLY COHERENT and that everything it points at exists — which is the part a machine can hold, stated as exactly that much. exit 0 = PASS, 1 = FAIL.

FALSIFIES condition

NOT STATED IN THE RUNNER.

File read: viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs, in full. The string falsif does not occur anywhere in it, and no step in evidence/remediation/phase9_plan.json declares one for this gate — the gate post-dates the plan's step list, and it is in any case the gate that reads that file.

The runner does state a self-falsification requirement for its own predicates, at viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs:348-349:

        `clean-on-truth=${cleanOnTruth} — a predicate that cannot be made to fire guards nothing, and ` +
        `one that cannot be made to stay quiet guards nothing either`);

That is a bite-proof for the checks, not a declared falsifier for the gate, and it is not promoted to one here.

Protocol

1. Run node viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs from the repository root.
2. Read-only over the plan. If the plan does not parse, the runner exits 1 with a single check (viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs:42-48) — record that as a distinct outcome from a coherence failure; the GATE: line reports 0/1 checks in that case.
3. Record the exit code and the final GATE: line (viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs:357), with the two lines printed after it (:359-360): "(Internal coherence only. Whether a status is TRUE of the world is not checkable here, and this gate never claims it is.)"

Ship-gate discipline

• The status vocabulary is read from the plan itself, not restated in the runner (viewer/verify_plan_consistency.cjs:50-56: "A second copy is a second thing to drift"). If the plan ever loses its vocabulary block, VOCAB is null — establish what the gate does in that case before reading its verdict.
• Evidence class C on a first local run.

Non-goals

This gate does not judge whether any status in the plan is true of the world. It establishes internal coherence and that the plan's pointers resolve.