chore(memory): BDR-115 amendment 2 + LRN-210/211 + EVAL-042 + journal/TODO/contract w2b — feat model-router wave 2

.claude/memory/evals.md

@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ rules:
 | EVAL-039 | 2026-09-30 | ship-feature run higgsfield-pack: plan dry-run in scratch → 0 executor failure on 7 tasks; challenge found 7 MAJOR I missed; floor-guard caught 2 shellcheck suppressions of mine; final review found README/code gap | keep |
 | EVAL-040 | 2026-10-08 | model-router w1a plan: 3 challengers + 1 confirmation found 2 BLOCKER + 14 MAJOR on a plan judged closed; executor then passed every gate first time | keep the round, never dispatch a mod plan without it |
 | EVAL-041 | 2026-10-09 | model-router W1-C plan: 3 lenses FATAL (4 BLOCKER + 20 MAJOR) then 2 confirmations each FATAL with a NEW BLOCKER in my own revision; executor DONE first pass, 3 short text/hardening rounds | one confirmation is not enough when a revision removes a whole mechanism; the plan carried the risk, the code almost none |
+| EVAL-042 | 2026-10-10 | model-router W2 plan r1 → r4: 3 lenses (1 BLOCKER), 2 confirmations (1 BLOCKER then 0); W2-A verifier 3× ECARTS on coverage clauses only, W2-B ECARTS(7) → CONFORME; gate A→B read from engine records | second confirmation paid again (BLOCKER on my own r2 slot); compound coverage criterion = endless ECARTS; engine jsonl replaces the live log |
 
 ---
 
@@ -387,3 +388,9 @@ Dogfood: 3 blind lenses attacked the v1 plan for the plan-challenge feature itse
 - **Anomaly**: 6 BLOCKER + 29 MAJOR over four revisions, each confirmation found a flaw my own fix had introduced; the doctrine cap (one confirmation) would have shipped r2 with a 5-hour false outage. The executor never needed a re-dispatch for logic: all later rounds were text truthfulness and hardening.
 - **Action**: when a revision REMOVES or REPLACES a mechanism, re-challenge once more (state the deviation); keep plan sections additive with an explicit precedence line (r4 > r3 > r2) so executors and verifiers read one law; name superseded clauses of prior contracts in the Disposition. Links [[EVAL-040]], [[LRN-207]], [[BDR-115]].
 
+## EVAL-042 — model-router W2: challenge value held on the second confirmation; coverage-shaped criterion burned three verifiers
+- **Date**: 2026-10-10
+- **Output checked**: plan `.claude/tasks/plans/2026-10-09-model-router-w2-1546.md` r1 → r4; W2-A diff (register.ts, 88 kit tests); W2-B diff (43 files, 140-check census).
+- **Method**: 3 blind lenses (simplicity CONCERNS(5), correctness CONCERNS(10), robustness FATAL(8) → BLOCKER: mod off = agents inherit parent model); confirmation 1 robustness FATAL(8) → BLOCKER introduced by r2 (route calls wiped the sticky slot); confirmation 2 correctness CONCERNS(3), no BLOCKER → r4. W2-A: feater DONE + 4 rounds (1 internal decision, 3 coverage), GATE 0 MET, verifier ECARTS(3)/(1)/(1) all coverage, user accepted at cap; security PASS. W2-B: feater DONE first pass, verifier ECARTS(7) (5 FLOOR items = planned deletions needing a CLARIFICATIONS line, 2 prose, 1 scope add) → CONFORME 10/10; security PASS; full `make test` once (env red only). Gate A→B: 3/4 probes answered from engine jsonl, probe 4 (typed skill with a live agent) unobserved, recorded as a limit.
+- **Anomaly**: the user's rework answer ("delete or rework, not copy") changed the design mid-plan; r2's own fix carried a BLOCKER again (as in EVAL-041). Coverage criterion: 3 verifiers, 0 defects. FLOOR guard needs the test deletions named in CLARIFICATIONS, not only in criteria.
+- **Action**: keep the "second confirmation after a mechanism change" rule; write coverage criteria one clause each (LRN-210); when a plan deletes tests, write the authorizing CLARIFICATIONS line BEFORE the first verifier. Links [[EVAL-041]], [[LRN-210]], [[LRN-211]], [[BDR-115]].