src/scribe/services/plugin_context.py

@@ -1300,7 +1300,7 @@ async def build_write_path_hint(
             user_id=user_id, source="write_path_rule", query=code or path,
             threshold=cfg["rule_threshold"], limit=RULEHINT_LIMIT,
             project_id=project_id,
-            is_task=None, results=fresh, duration_ms=rule_ms,
+            is_task=None, results=hits, duration_ms=rule_ms,
             # What the ranker found and this session had already been told.
             # Without it a zero row cannot say whether the bar was too high or
             # the reader was simply ahead of it — and only the first is a
@@ -1404,7 +1404,7 @@ async def build_tool_rule_hint(
             user_id=user_id, source="pre_tool_rule", query=query,
             threshold=cfg["rule_threshold"], limit=RULEHINT_LIMIT,
             project_id=project_id,
-            is_task=None, results=fresh, duration_ms=duration_ms,
+            is_task=None, results=hits, duration_ms=duration_ms,
             # See the sibling arm. It matters more here: this arm fires on every
             # Bash call, so a long session excludes its way to an all-zero row
             # and the threshold looks wrong when nothing about it is.

tests/test_rule_usage_wiring.py

@@ -772,3 +772,97 @@ async def test_a_shown_hit_is_not_counted_as_suppressed():
     assert out["rule_ids"] == [161]
     assert log.call_args.kwargs["suppressed"] == 1
     assert len(log.call_args.kwargs["results"]) == 1
+
+
+# ── The identity that falsified this milestone (#3668) ─────────────────
+#
+# `rule_usage.surfaced` == `pre_tool_rule.cleared` + `write_path_rule.cleared`.
+# Milestone #379 was scoped on a reconstruction that put ~64% of ranked rule
+# surfacings as never reaching `rule_usage_events`. Five steps were planned
+# against it. One read of this identity — 17 = 17, then 39 = 39 on a second
+# window — falsified the whole thing: the gap was two counters that started
+# recording on different days, not a write path dropping rows.
+#
+# So the identity is not a nice-to-have. It is the cheapest true statement
+# available about this pair of tables, and its absence is what let a magnitude
+# that merely LOOKED wrong survive a code review and a five-step plan. An
+# identity that must hold exactly beats a magnitude that looks wrong.
+#
+# WHY THE ARM IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO PIN IT, and the readout is not. Inside an
+# arm, one `fresh` list feeds both recorders in one function, so the counts
+# cannot legitimately differ — at any limit. The readout-level form is weaker
+# than it looks: `cleared_threshold` counts CALLS that beat the bar while
+# `surfaced` counts RULES, and those coincide only while `RULEHINT_LIMIT` is 1.
+# Raise the limit and the readout identity breaks while nothing is wrong.
+# `RULEHINT_LIMIT` has already moved once (2 → 1, `2385100`), and that move is
+# half of why the original reconstruction misread its own numbers.
+#
+# Hence three hits below, where production currently returns at most one. The
+# test is deliberately in a state the limit does not permit today, because what
+# is being pinned is that the two recorders read the same list — not that the
+# list happens to be short.
+
+_THREE_HITS = [
+    (0.81, fake_rule(id=156, title="A wait with no deadline is a bug")),
+    (0.77, fake_rule(id=157, title="A loop re-arms in a finally")),
+    (0.74, fake_rule(id=161, title="Reach the forge through its MCP tools")),
+]
+
+_ARMS = [("write_path_rule", _run_arm), ("pre_tool_rule", _run_tool_arm)]
+
+
+def _both_ends(log, rec, source):
+    """What the two recorders said about one call, at the same grain.
+
+    Ids rather than counts. Equal counts drawn from different lists is a real
+    way for this to break — an off-by-one slice, or one recorder reading `hits`
+    where the other reads `fresh` in a window where the exclusion happened to
+    remove as many as it added — and a count comparison would call that agreement.
+    """
+    rows = [c for c in log.call_args_list if c.kwargs.get("source") == source]
+    assert len(rows) == 1, (
+        f"expected exactly one {source} call row, got {len(rows)} — the "
+        f"identity is per call and cannot be read across several"
+    )
+    logged = [rule.id for _score, rule in rows[0].kwargs["results"]]
+    surfaced = [
+        rid
+        for c in rec.call_args_list if c.kwargs.get("source") == source
+        for rid in c.kwargs["rule_ids"]
+    ]
+    return logged, surfaced
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(("source", "run"), _ARMS, ids=["write_path", "pre_tool"])
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+    ("excluded", "expected"),
+    [([], 3), ([157], 2), ([156, 157, 161], 0)],
+    ids=["nothing-held", "one-already-held", "all-already-held"],
+)
+@pytest.mark.asyncio
+async def test_both_recorders_report_the_same_rules_for_one_call(
+    source, run, excluded, expected
+):
+    """One list, two tables, no room to disagree.
+
+    The middle case is the one that discriminates. With nothing excluded both
+    recorders see the same three rules however wrongly they are wired, so an
+    arm logging `hits` to the call log and `fresh` to the surfacing log passes
+    that case and fails this one — and logging `hits` is exactly the divergence
+    that would manufacture an apparent write loss out of a correct system.
+    """
+    log, rec = MagicMock(), MagicMock()
+    await run(list(_THREE_HITS), rec, retrieval_log=log, exclude_rule_ids=excluded)
+
+    logged, surfaced = _both_ends(log, rec, source)
+    assert surfaced == logged, (
+        f"{source} told its two tables different stories about one call: the "
+        f"call log recorded {logged} and the surfacing log recorded {surfaced}. "
+        f"Both come from `fresh`, in one function, so any difference is a bug "
+        f"in the wiring — and it is the shape that reads as a lost write when "
+        f"the two tables are later compared in aggregate (#3668)."
+    )
+    assert len(logged) == expected, (
+        "the fixture stopped exercising what it claims to; check the exclusion "
+        "filter still runs before both recorders"
+    )