Last run left one failure, and it was the useful kind: the partner ARRIVED
(the scoping fix in 9c5ab1d worked) but carried no `via`, because it came
through the ordinary query rather than being dragged in by the edge.
The assertion was about to be read as "the edge is broken". It was not. The
edge was never exercised: since 394 an untagged rule in a subscribed rulebook
applies on its own, so the partner was already applicable and there was
nothing left for `co_surfaces` to do. The test had quietly stopped testing
anything — passing the first assertion for a reason unrelated to the
mechanism it names.
Rule 167's case exactly, so the fix is to restore its ability to fail rather
than to soften the assertion. The partner is now TAGGED to an area this
project does not work in, which puts it out of reach of everything except the
edge, and the test asserts that unreachability before drawing the relation.
If the edge ever stops dragging partners in, this fails again — which it
could not have done a commit ago.
The neighbouring suppression test keeps an UNTAGGED partner, deliberately and
now explicitly: that one is about a suppression outranking an edge, so its
partner should be reachable by every route, not none.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011cPyzNnegXHr5iRMzzy5KJ
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
32db56c0df