v0.4.0

A new gate at step 6 and step 10: housebroken claims.

Every gate in this repository read code. File modes, working trees, diffs, comment density, red-then-green, the project's own CI. Nothing read the prose, and the prose is what a maintainer reads first.

On microsoft/GSL #1272 a reply draft said "The five new static_asserts fail on main." An adversarial review falsified it in one pass. Reverting only the rework fails four of the five, because for dyn_array_iterator<const T> the old const_reference and reference are the same type, so the defect never reached the const iterator. Against upstream, five fail beside twenty-one other errors, since that state predates the pull request's own first commit. The number came from a red arm that grepped for static assertion failed and so counted its own filter.

claim-check.sh lists every counted or absolute claim in a body or a reply, so each is re-measured against the exact revision its sentence names. It deliberately does not judge. The sentence that caused it named its revision and read perfectly; a text check cannot tell you it was wrong about it. Listing is the gate, and the re-derivation belongs to whoever is sending the text.

Its own first draft could not catch the sentence it was written for. The pattern wanted the noun beside the number, and "five new static_asserts" has a word in between, so the sentence passed clean in isolation. It had only appeared to work because in the real draft it shared a line with "15/15". Test a new check against the verbatim artefact that motivated it, alone in a file, before believing it.