v1.1.6 — measurement, evidence, citation

The 1.1 spec is unchanged. This release makes the protocol's claims about itself auditable — and corrects two that were not.

Two published numbers were wrong.

The scorecard read 529 accepted / 22 falsified. That pair had never been derived: the counting rule was documented in MEASUREMENT.md, and had never been executed. Running it gives 249 accepted / 43 falsified at commit d006a752 — accepted lower than published, falsified roughly double. The commit count read 1,768; it reconciles with no clean definition of the history. The reproducible figure is 3,618 non-merge commits at 1f79af15.

New in this release

• adp_claims.py — executes the claim-counting procedure, reports a range rather than a point, emits receipts with file and line, prints its own blind spots
• adp_history.py — derives an install's output mix from git history, excluding generated artifacts
• evidence/ — 855 receipt rows, both installs, pinned commits, limits stated. Published so the figures can be audited rather than believed
• CITATION.cff — DOI and ORCID; GitHub now renders "Cite this repository"
• protocolreview.md — the protocol review as a recurring, portable ritual

Two defects published rather than repaired

Two of the four metrics in adp_metrics.py report false zeros — the parsers look for conventions this install does not write. And adp_claims.py was wrong on its first run: a malformed pattern returned 59 where the truth was 422, silently, caught only by an independent check. Both are in the record, because the protocol's argument applies to its own instruments.

The fastest way to test this on your own work is the six-class semantic checklist: run it against your team's next ten specifications and report what it caught. Zero catches is a result worth reporting — disconfirming reports are graded and published on the same scorecard as our own.

Preprint: doi:10.5281/zenodo.21982389