Can the Gate Catch Tomorrow's Change? A Prospective Shadow Trial of Claim Revalidation

Can a prospective gate notice when a genuinely later software change should make a current claim stale, without unnecessarily withdrawing unrelated claims or rewriting history?

D23-A ran a shadow claim-revalidation gate on one real Encevra commit interval after the Round 22 manifest was frozen, comparing five selectors against post-hoc labels. Result boundary: one post-freeze real commit interval; same-process post-hoc impact labels; eight authored conformance fixtures; zero model, provider, production-database, and production-write calls; no product reliability, answer-quality, security, latency, or cost claim; no production CTAG or ABMG implementation. Historical findings stay frozen, current negative claims were revalidated at the candidate commit, and H21-IMPACT and H21-COST remain untested. E23-B and H23-1 to H23-8 are proposed.

• The hybrid selector found all three artifacts labeled relevant in the real interval, including one uniquely added by an independently derived import view. It also selected four irrelevant artifacts and invalidated two claims that adjudication later found unaffected. Design evidence from one interval, not a general validation result.

• D23-A Prospective shadow trial of claim revalidation (D23-A) Executed (bounded shadow diagnostic)
• E23-B Prospective multi-commit CTAG shadow evaluation with independent adjudication Proposed

• H23-1 Stale-claim escape: across a preregistered multi-commit window, the hybrid will leave fewer independently adjudicated affected claims current than the frozen exact-path manifest at the same claim-revalidation budget.
• H23-2 Unique-view value: removing the static-import view will increase affected-artifact false negatives on at least one held-out commit without an equal reduction in false-invalidated claims.
• H23-3 Unknown-path value: removing the fail-closed unknown rule will increase stale-claim escape on held-out adapter, configuration, or execution-path changes.
• H23-4 Selectivity: at equal stale-claim escape, the hybrid will select fewer artifact-review tasks and fewer unaffected claims than retest-all.
• H23-5 Availability: the hybrid plus cached claim-specific procedures will maintain greater useful-current availability over time than a policy that expires all current claims on every production change.
• H23-6 Lifecycle integrity: neither selector execution nor revalidation will rewrite historical findings or upgrade untested hypotheses in any evaluated commit.
• H23-7 Cost: end-to-end review labor, including graph maintenance and selector triage, will be lower for the hybrid than retest-all at matched stale-claim escape.
• H23-8 Mismatch trigger: revalidation triggered by a typed dependency mismatch will achieve lower unnecessary revalidation than periodic expiry at matched stale-claim escape.

Production impact: None. No production CTAG or ABMG implementation.

• Does the hybrid reduce stale-claim escape across a preregistered multi-commit window with independent adjudication (E23-B)?

Builds on Round 22, Round 21. Continued in Round 25, Round 24.