A reload test that passed without proving the requirement

Consider a small interface that shows the status of an existing analysis. The task requires a reload to read that same analysis without submitting a new paid operation. The lead has permitted local source changes and local tests, but no deployment or external billing call.

The worker implements a handler and supplies a passing test. The test checks only that the heading "Your analysis" appears. Both a correct read and an incorrect resubmission could eventually show that heading. The test's result is real within the example, but its assertion does not distinguish the behavior the lead asked for.

Before the gate

Without an evidence check, the lead receives PASS, reads the test, identifies the missing observation, and sends a new instruction. The worker adds the observation and returns another packet. This is a plausible source of repeated review work; it is not a measured saving from this repository.

At the gate

The collector supplies the original requirement, the current handler, the test setup and assertions, and the runner's result. It does not send only the worker's summary that all tests passed.

A narrow question asks whether those assertions demonstrate reading the same analysis without submitting another operation. It does not ask whether the whole application is correct. The premature PASS example contains an explicitly illustrative assessment of this gap.

The evaluator's uncertainty and evidence insufficiency are separate from the decision to act. If the relevant material is missing, the gate cannot invent it. If a permitted local continuation is available, the controller may authorize the specific evidence work. If authority is absent, the packet goes to the lead.

After the continuation

A more relevant local test invokes the real reload handler with an injected read dependency and a separate submission spy. It checks the exact identifier passed to read and verifies that submission was not called. This use of mocks does not bypass the handler under review.

That evidence supports a narrow statement about the local handler. It does not prove the behavior of an unshown production route, every possible race, or persistence after a backend restart. The complete evidence example makes this boundary explicit.

The worker returns its candidate, the new validation result, and a concise assessment record. The lead still reviews the work. The gate's purpose is to make that review better prepared, not to replace it with a second model's endorsement.

What a real integration would have to demonstrate

The fixture files do not execute this process. A runtime adapter would need to show that the evidence was collected from the correct candidate, the grant was issued once, the local work stayed within scope, and the lead was not invoked between the provisional result and the completed continuation.