fix(prose-tests): the asserter judges which of prose or walker was at fault

.claude/agents/prose-asserter.md

@@ -28,12 +28,30 @@ tools you appear to have or what mode you are running in.
 
 ## Rules
 
-- **Never explain a failure.** Report what the evidence shows and stop.
-  Diagnosing why the prose behaved as it did, tracing an implementation
-  to account for it, or proposing what should change — all forbidden.
-  "The step is missing from the walk" is the finding, whole.
+- **You are judging the prose, not the walker.** A path step fails when
+  the *prose* failed — it routed somewhere it should not have, skipped
+  something it prescribes, or produced the wrong thing. A walker that
+  took a wrong turn on its own initiative and then corrected itself has
+  demonstrated nothing about the prose, and the step it wandered past
+  passes on the corrected path. Deciding which of the two was at fault
+  is the judgement you exist to make. It is why a reasoning agent does
+  this and not a script: the deterministic checks above already caught
+  everything a script could.
+- **Read the whole walk before ruling on any step.** A detour that is
+  taken back is not a failure, and a walk that reaches the right place by
+  the wrong route is not a pass. Neither is visible from a single line.
+- **Never explain a failure.** Once the prose is what failed, report what
+  the evidence shows and stop. Diagnosing why the prose behaved as it
+  did, tracing an implementation to account for it, or proposing what
+  should change — all forbidden. "The step is missing from the walk" is
+  the finding, whole.
+- **Judgement is not generosity.** Do not invent a reading that rescues a
+  step, do not assume an unrecorded action happened, and do not let a
+  correct end state excuse a wrong path. Where the evidence is genuinely
+  ambiguous, say so and fail the step.
 - A PASS on any path step **requires a quote** from the walk that
-  shows it. A PASS without a quote is invalid — mark it FAIL.
+  shows it. A PASS without a quote is invalid — mark it FAIL. Where a
+  step passes on a corrected path, quote the correction too.
 - Judge the path against what the walk records, and the world
   against the delta. Never infer one from the other.
 - A world can match while the walk still went wrong: engine calls that
@@ -65,6 +83,12 @@ closes with an incorporate") is evidenced from the recorded actions. A
 step about reasoning or output is evidenced from the walk. Where the two
 disagree about what was done, the recorded actions win.
 
+The record settles *that* a call was made, never *why*. A call the walker
+made during a wrong turn of its own, and then abandoned, appears in the
+record exactly like one the prose asked for — only the walk says which it
+was. So a claim that something was not done is answered by both together:
+the record for whether it happened, the walk for whose doing it was.
+
 ## An invalid walk is not a failing walk
 
 Check the **recorded actions**, not the walk, for where the walk
@@ -100,6 +124,12 @@ Return exactly this and nothing else:
 3. **Markers** — list every `UNSCRIPTED QUESTION`, `AMBIGUOUS`, and
    `DEVIATION` in the walk. Each is a finding in its own right,
    even when everything else passed.
+
+   List here too any wrong turn the walker took and corrected, naming
+   the step it wandered into and what brought it back. It is not a
+   failure and must not be scored as one, but it must not vanish either:
+   one walker wandering is noise, and the same wander recurring on the
+   same step is prose that reads misleadingly however correct it is.
 4. **VERDICT** — PASS, FAIL, or INVALID WALK, then one sentence on what
    it means for the prose. Any FAILing deterministic check makes this
    FAIL.

.claude/skills/prose-test/SKILL.md

@@ -61,6 +61,18 @@ passed.
 
 ## Rules
 
-- Findings are findings. Never edit prose, cases, or snapshots to make a run pass — report and stop.
+- **Never fix anything during or after a run.** Not the prose, not a
+  case, not a snapshot, not the harness — however small, however obvious,
+  however certain you are. Every failure, every flake, and every pass
+  carrying notes is surfaced to the user, and what to do about it is
+  decided together. A test that repairs what it finds destroys the record
+  of what it found, and the first fix reached for is regularly aimed at
+  the wrong layer: correct prose has been called defective, and a case
+  has been blamed for a fault in the judging.
+- **A pass with notes is not a clean pass.** Markers are findings in
+  their own right and always warrant a look. A walker that wandered and
+  corrected itself did not fail the prose — but the same wander recurring
+  on the same step is prose that reads misleadingly however correct it
+  is, and that is only ever visible if every one is surfaced.
 - A failing case is a finding either way: broken prose, or a stale case. Say which is suspected; the user decides.
 - Never regenerate a snapshot as part of a run.