feat: READ-RECEIPT dispatch provenance + marker parity (check 38)

[miladaslaner]

Phases 2 and 3 of the read-receipt work. Follows #5, which wired the hooks.

The problem this closes

A dispatch acting on recorded intent is supposed to have read that record. Nothing observed whether it did.

The three RC verifiers inspect the diff — correctness, coverage, attack surface. None asks did you read the record. So a skipped read produced no VERDICT: FAIL, no bounce, no round — and retro classifies bounce causes from verdict lanes. The class was structurally invisible to the learning organ: the one failure the loop could not learn from, because it left no trace to learn from. It recurred all day while each session reported having learned from it.

The change — 3 files, not 38

One writer, one definition, one auditor:

Where	What
contract reference/structured-lanes.md	Define READ-RECEIPT: once — shape, the verbatim-quote field, freshness scoped to the current round and dispatch
orchestrate	Write it at the intent gate it was already resolving. It rides in the dispatch brief, so producers inherit it
retro	No edit needed — its Conformance checklist derives from the internal config's lanes table at run time
lint	Check 38 — every marker the contract defines must be named by the orchestrator

Zero producer edits. CLAUDE.md is explicit that an inheritor cites and adds no rule of its own — a local restatement is the copy that survives the next central fix and keeps misbehaving.

Why the verbatim quote

It cannot be reliably reproduced from memory, and a fabricated one is falsifiable by re-fetching the source. The receipt is simultaneously evidence-of-read and self-checking — unlike "I read it", which is unfalsifiable and therefore worthless.

Written as cases, not a prohibition

Per the 2026-07-21 lesson, where one absolute clause produced seven denial-of-service defects:

Intent-gate branch	Receipt
Note resolves	Write it; proceed
pending, drafting outstanding	intake dispatches as today — drafting is never blocked
No owning note	Existing invalid-intent branch; nothing to cite
Quarantined	Blocked as today

A missing receipt is a provenance gap surfaced in the run summary — never a bounce, never a round increment, never a new gate.

Second commit: check 38 was passing vacuously

Worth reading on its own. The first draft matched only the backticked prose form, and READ-RECEIPT is specified in a fenced code block — so the check reported PASS while blind to the very marker it was built for. Caught by noticing the marker count drop 13 → 12 after an unrelated edit, not by the check itself.

Now matches both forms, and re-tested adversarially in the previously-blind case. Second time in this branch a check needed proving it could fail, and the second time the proof found something.

Not restated in the contract body

That body sits at exactly the 450-line soft cap, so any restatement would have bought prominence with a --strict failure. The body already links structured-lanes.md. Flagging separately: the contract has been sitting on the cap, so the next substantive change hits this wall and needs a real reference extraction.

Gates

--strict 0 FAIL / 0 WARN · 243 tests · scan-secrets clean · dist rebuilt · +2 eval scenarios.

Behavioural eval run not included — real cost, rate-limited; check 29 NOTEs the three pending skills and ./run-pending-evals.sh is the remedy.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01RqAwCCiY6xE9MT3fTk8x25