msd-core/gsd-core/references/honest-verifier.md

Honest Verifier — Abstention on Non-Inferable Checks

Shared reference for the verify phase. The verify-time companion to the spec-time @~/.claude/gsd-core/references/edge-probe.md (which classifies non-inferable checks) and @~/.claude/gsd-core/references/prohibition-probe.md (whose judgment-tier disposition this mirrors). This doc is written in generic spec → predicate → verifier terms with no tool-specific vocabulary, so it is portable: copy it into any verification process.

The problem it solves

A verifier is trustworthy on inferable checks — defects determined by the stated spec. On a non-inferable check the correct answer is not derivable from the spec alone (e.g. "does [1,2] touching [2,3] merge?", "is a 'character' a grapheme or a code unit?"). On these the verifier does not know that it does not know: measured behavior is a confident PASS on the blind-spot check ~100% of the time (mean confidence ~0.93), because a model cannot self-detect a gap it does not perceive.

The edge-probe already detects these at spec time and tags them verification: backstop (ADR-550 D7a). The honest verifier consumes that tag so the verifier abstains instead of confidently false-passing — converting a silent false-pass (the worst failure: you don't know to look) into an explicit, actionable "write a held-out test." Measured: the confident-false-pass rate on the blind spot drops 100% → 17% (N17).

The two properties that define the design

1. Exogenous, not endogenous. The trigger is the external tag (backstop), never the verifier's self-judgment. Asking the verifier to "abstain if unsure" barely moves the number (100% → 67%) and only on ambiguity it already notices; on a true blind spot it stays confidently wrong. A confidence gate cannot reach a blind spot the model does not feel — so there is no "are you sure?" prompt; routing is on the pre-existing tag only.
2. Routing, not diagnosis. The verifier need not name the omitted rule (if it could, it wouldn't be a blind spot). In testing, verifiers abstained correctly while citing the wrong edge. The honest verdict requires only "I was told this is under-specified and I cannot rule it out." The omitted rule is carried by a human-authored held-out test, not by the verifier.

The disposition (the protocol)

For each must_haves.truths item:

Item	Confirmable with explicit evidence?	Disposition
Inferable (plain string, or verification: explicit)	n/a — graded normally	✓ VERIFIED / ✗ FAILED as usual; never abstained (over-abstention guard)
Non-inferable (verification: backstop)	yes (a wired held-out/property-based test that passes, or a directly-observed behavior)	✓ VERIFIED
Non-inferable (verification: backstop)	no	abstain → ⚠️ insufficient_spec, flagged, → human_needed — never passed

• Explicit evidence = a wired held-out/property-based test that passes, or a behavior the verifier directly observed. Symbol presence + wiring is not explicit evidence for a non-inferable truth.
• Never silent, never a hard halt. Interactive: the abstained item routes to the end-of-phase human checkpoint. Autonomous (AFK): it produces a prominent unverified — held-out test recommended flag and the completion line reads "complete with N unverified non-inferable checks"; the run neither silently passes the blind spot nor hard-halts.
• Distinguishable reason. The abstain disposition carries reason: insufficient_spec so the human_needed outcome is never conflated with an ordinary manual-UAT human_needed.

This is the verify-time half of ADR-550 Decision 4 (the never-silent-pass disposition), applied to the edge backstop truth tier instead of the prohibition judgment tier — the same machinery, opposite polarity (must-HAVE under-specified vs must-NOT irreducible).

Deterministic engine surface

The CI-testable surface is the deterministic disposition + projection, never the LLM's judgment (ADR-550 D5 — a test asserting the model's verdict is vacuous and rejected). In probe-core:

• truthStatement(t) / truthVerification(t) — normalizers; read a truth's statement and tier from either the plain-string or object form (a truth-reader MUST normalize, never assume a string).
• projectTruths(items) — conservative serializer: a backstop truth → flat-scalar object { statement, verification: backstop }; every inferable truth → a bare string.
• dispositionForUnverifiableTruth(truth, { evidence }) → { status, flagged, tier, reason }: backstop + no evidence → unverified/flagged/insufficient_spec; backstop + evidence → green; non-backstop → green (over-abstention guard).

Capable-tier requirement (a documented cost)

Abstention is model-tier dependent and this is a standing cost, not an assumption:

• The default gsd-verifier tier (sonnet, golden/balanced) heeds the exogenous tag reliably (2/2 under testing).
• The budget tier (haiku) is the least flag-responsive (1/2, inconsistent) and degrades toward current behavior (confident false-pass). Run honest-verifier on a capable tier; treat the budget tier as best-effort. Re-validate when the gsd-verifier model tier changes or a new budget model is adopted (captured as a test so a tier regression is caught, not discovered in production).

Evidence and scope (stated honestly)

• Evidence strength. N17 is n=27 verdicts (3 models × 3 conditions × 3 tasks), 1 rep — direction-finding, not powered. The blind-spot effect is large and monotone (100% → 67% → 17%); the two costs are clean single events (a false tag made the strongest model over-abstain on a real spec-determined bug; the weakest tier was flag-deaf) and they name exactly the failure modes the over-abstention guard and the capable-tier requirement defend against.
• Tag-precision coupling. Quality is bounded by the edge-probe's backstop recall/precision — a false non-inferable flag causes over-abstention. Positive coupling: improving the probe (#1110) improves this for free. It adds no independent burden.
• Explicit non-goals. Does NOT identify the omitted rule; does NOT recalibrate decisive verdicts; does NOT defend against malicious compliance (a self-graded review rationalizing away its own findings). It raises the floor on honest uncertainty about non-inferable checks — that is the whole claim.

Distinct from neighbours

• vs PRESENT_BEHAVIOR_UNVERIFIED (#966 axis): that is the inferable-but-unobserved case — the truth can be verified from the spec but was shortcut-passed on symbol presence; the fix is to demand behavioral evidence. Honest-verifier is the non-inferable case — the truth cannot be verified from the spec at all; the fix is to abstain and route to a held-out test. Orthogonal axes (insufficient evidence vs insufficient spec); both feed the same human_needed sink.
• vs prohibition judgment-tier (#644): that disposes must-NOT constraints; honest-verifier disposes non-inferable positive truths. Opposite polarity, same never-silent disposition.