bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5 bb8013928f feat(telemetry): the readout names rules that were opened and changed nothing (#4213) ...

Milestone 419 step 2. Step 1 made an outcome recordable; this makes it
readable. `retrieval_summary`'s rule block gains `applied`, `departed` and
`distinct_rules_acted`, and `_compute_warnings` gains two codes.

TWO CODES, NOT ONE WITH A ZERO IN IT. `read_and_unacted` reports rules that
were opened and left no outcome, against the ones that did. It only fires once
outcomes exist anywhere in the window, because a window with none cannot tell
"every rule was ignored" from "nothing calls `rule_outcome` yet" — and on
every install the day this ships, the truth is the second. Claiming the first
there would be #3311's failure exactly: a statistic that could not vary being
read as a fact about the corpus. The cold case gets its own code,
`outcomes_never_recorded`, whose prose says in as many words that it does NOT
mean the rules were ignored.

`applied` AND `departed` ARE NOT SUMMED. A departure carries the reason the
agent gave and is evidence about the RULE; an application is evidence about
the agent. Folded together they would say only "an outcome exists", which is
true of both and useful about neither. `distinct_rules_acted` counts either,
because for the unacted arithmetic the distinction does not matter.

An outcome is not a pull. The fold branches on OUTCOMES first and never routes
an outcome through the surfaced/ambient split: `source` on an outcome row
names the door the outcome came through, not a ranker, so the ambient
distinction has nothing to say about it. An integration test holds that line —
if an outcome leaked into the pull counters the silently-unchanged rule would
vanish into a compliant-looking total, which is the confusion #4212 was opened
to end.

Verified by lifting the shipped `_compute_warnings` out of source with `ast`
and exercising it against the six populations the new tests assert: cold
instrument, warm instrument, departures-only, full compliance, nothing opened,
and a failed read. The integration tests for the new counts run against real
Postgres in CI — count(distinct) with an IN over an unconstrained column is a
SQL shape a mock would agree with whatever it did, which is what #2663 was.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy

2026-09-21 00:13:45 -04:00

..

scribe

feat(telemetry): the readout names rules that were opened and changed nothing (#4213)

2026-09-21 00:13:45 -04:00