BS-1 operating constraint - the F07 open item, resolved by the user
The user clarified what the 24/7 constraint actually is: a defect in the
software could, worst case, halt production - an outcome that must never occur.
That is a FAILURE-CONSEQUENCE constraint, and the submitted NVIDIA cover letter
states something different: "a production line that could not be stopped for a
deployment" describes a scheduling window. The distinction matters in both
directions - the letter is inaccurate, and the truth is the stronger claim.
- BS-1 scope now records the real constraint and how to write it.
- Both variants of the letter's phrasing are added to BS-1 `forbidden`, so the
scanner catches them. Verified: it now flags the submitted letter.
- BS-1 evidence filled from a real source (this clarification) rather than left
unrecorded, including ownership - integration and operation, not model work.
- The submitted letter is NOT rewritten (F17). experience_bosch.md records the
resolution and the wording to use instead.
Scanner false positive fixed: the employer-date check now runs on CVs only. A
cover letter naming an employer in prose is not claiming a date.
Cleanup, authorised by the user
- 136 LaTeX build artefacts removed (already gitignored, regenerable).
- 7 superseded intermediate QA renders removed, 6 of them in NATO_AI_ENGINEER
which carried nine PDFs for two documents.
- Nothing evidential touched: 36 submitted PDFs, 41 e2e deliverables, 44 sources,
54 session/critique files and 20 JD files are intact. The Kraken PDF was
checked before deleting and turned out to be the saved job description, not a
render.
- output/ 16M -> 13M.
37/37 tests pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qej5SBvhcbGXHwLqNWiskM
Build sweep run this session: 48 sources, 46 built, 2 failed. Infineon_AI_Engineer's
cover letter fails on font expansion (the font is not scalable); cv_template.tex
fails on unfilled placeholders, which is expected for the academic legacy path.
Overfull boxes: Microsoft ISE 25.33pt, Isovalent 0.88pt. All historical, all
left alone.
New: resume_builder/helpers/package_manifest.py records, per application
package, what a rebuild would ACTUALLY do - sources, class-file hashes, PDFs
present, and the reasons a rebuild would not reproduce the submitted document.
It is descriptive; nothing in it authorises rewriting a submitted file.
What it found across 21 packages:
- 17 are DATE-DEPENDENT. The cover letters use oday, so recompiling a
historical package silently restamps it with today's date.
- 1 has an INCOMPLETE SOURCE DISTRIBUTION: output/NATO_AI_ENGINEER ships no
resume.cls. It builds on this machine only because a copy exists elsewhere,
and the shipped PDF hid that. Not repaired by copying the newest class in -
the repo carries THREE different resume.cls variants (13/7/1 copies) and older
macros differ, so that "fix" could silently change a historical document.
- 1 has no PDF at all, so nothing is reviewable without a build.
Classification: 7 application packages were in no reuse category. Added to
historical_revalidate, and the register now records the default explicitly -
anything unlisted is treated as revalidate-before-reuse. Being recent is not the
same as being verified; none of the seven was re-read for this.
Prevention rather than repair: oday removed from the cover-letter template so
new packages stop adding to the pile. A test now fails if it comes back, if the
manifest goes stale, or if a package is left unclassified.
Also: scan_document gained a template mode. A placeholder in a TEMPLATE is what
makes it a template; the defect is one surviving into a generated document.
37/37 tests pass; counter-proof still catches all 9.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qej5SBvhcbGXHwLqNWiskM
dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5