M11: what the server will actually read

The release-validation milestone, and the thing it had to settle first was
whether any of the earlier evidence meant what it said. M8 measured a deployment
enforcing a 4,096-token input window while the application budgeted 16,384.
Every request returned 200. What Ollama does with the excess is drop the oldest
tokens, and the oldest tokens here are the system block — the narrator's rules
and the campaign canon. A hundred-turn certification against that server would
have looked perfect and proved nothing, which is why this milestone could not
begin with a hundred turns.

So the application asks now. Ollama's window is a property of how a model was
loaded rather than of the request — sending num_ctx is accepted, ignored, and
worse, reloads the model at the server's own default — so the only honest move
is to find out and then tell the truth about it. /api/ps reports what a resident
model is being served with, /api/show what an unloaded one will load with, both
on the same host inference already uses, through the same endpoint policy and
the same TLS trust store. A verified window is a ceiling on the budget; an
unverified one leaves the budget alone and is recorded as unverified in the
turn's own provenance, so an old turn can be asked afterwards whether it was
built against a checked window. There is no third behaviour, and in particular
no hard-coded 4,096: a number the server did not say would be right on one
machine and wrong on the next.

The proof that this is doing something is a campaign whose canon sits at the
front of the prompt, 120 turns of history, and a 4,096-token window. The canon
is still there afterwards and the oldest history is gone. The same campaign
built the old way produces a prompt more than twice the window — the defect,
reproduced, so the fix is measured against it rather than asserted.

Two defects the validation found on its own, and they are the same defect twice:
something was true and nobody was told. A manual state correction of four
changes with one bad reference applied three, returned 201, and said nothing —
while recording the refusal on the audit row nobody reads. It came to light
because the identity diagnostic's own fixture was refused that way and the whole
run proceeded on a campaign with no scene, which would have read as a model
failure. And the narration-length setting moved no number: brief, medium and
long each became one English sentence, while the numeric hint the model actually
reads was derived from the global reply cap and said the same thing for all
three. Both now say what they did.

The other two post-M8 findings are closed as well. The tab said AI D&D, which no
document had ever claimed it did not; it says Interactive Story now, with the
open campaign first, and the name is the owner's decision rather than a
find-and-replace to something narrower than the engine. After an Undo the reader
could not tell where they had landed; the control row now ends with
"Moment 11 · later story ahead", from the server's own answer, in the word the
transcript already uses, with none of head, branch or depth anywhere near it.

The identity diagnostic exists and the root cause does not. That campaign was
destroyed, so no cause can be established — what M11 owes the finding is
something that can classify the next occurrence, and a diagnostic that makes only
the judgements a program can honestly make: duplicate keys, shared names,
protagonist drift, state and context disagreeing. Whether prose misattributed a
line is left to a person reading it beside its prompt, because a regex cannot
read dialogue and one that pretended to would produce exactly the confident wrong
answer this finding is about. Its detectors are proved to fire against a planted
second Alice.

Two entities may still share a display name. That was checked first, as the
finding asked, and left permitted: a mother and a daughter, or a stranger giving
a false name, are ordinary fiction, and refusing them to guard against a model
mistake would refuse the wrong thing. What was missing was that it happened
silently. It is reported now.

Evidence, not inference: a hundred accepted turns against a real narrator with
genuine process restarts; a real browser against the built SPA; a container with
no network at all; a campaign moved into a data directory that never existed.
Each was discarded and re-run whenever the product changed under it, and the runs
that were thrown away are listed in the report with the reason, along with ten
defects in the harnesses themselves — because a harness that has only ever
agreed with itself is not evidence, and two of M8's five harness defects were
masking real ones.

No dependency was added, removed or upgraded. No acceptance test was retired,
relaxed or reclassified. M11 is implemented and verified; it is not accepted, and
there is no release tag.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qyn3oRd4D6pi72nKBG725B

backend/tests/test_m10_bundle.py

@@ -243,9 +243,12 @@ def m9_database():
 
     M10's only schema change is the `visual_profiles` table, so an M9-era file
     is exactly this: the current schema without that table, stamped at 92 — the
-    version M9 ended on and, since M10 adds no migration, the version it still
-    ends on. The campaign rows are written before the upgrade, because the claim
-    under test is that they are still there afterwards.
+    version M9 ended on, and the version an M10-era file still carries, because
+    M10 added no migration of its own. Opening it brings it to whatever the
+    current version is; M11 later added 93, which is why these tests compare
+    against `LATEST_VERSION` rather than a literal. The campaign rows are
+    written before the upgrade, because the claim under test is that they are
+    still there afterwards.
     """
     directory = tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="m10-migrate-")
     path = Path(directory) / "campaign.db"
@@ -283,12 +286,26 @@ def test_an_m9_database_gains_the_new_table_when_it_is_opened(m9_database):
     path, older, adv_id = m9_database
     assert _version(older) == 92
     migrations.bootstrap(older)
-    assert _version(older) == migrations.LATEST_VERSION == 92
+    assert _version(older) == migrations.LATEST_VERSION
     with older.begin() as conn:
         assert conn.execute(text("SELECT COUNT(*) FROM visual_profiles")).scalar() == 0
     assert "ix_visual_profiles_adventure_id" in _indexes(older)
 
 
+def test_no_migration_mentions_the_table_m10_added(m9_database):
+    """M10's actual claim, stated so a later migration cannot invalidate it.
+
+    The first version of this file expressed "M10 adds no migration" as
+    `LATEST_VERSION == 92`, which stopped being true the moment M11 added a
+    column to another table — a fact about M11 that says nothing about M10. The
+    durable claim is that `visual_profiles` arrives through `create_all` and
+    that no migration anywhere touches it.
+    """
+    for _, sql in migrations.MIGRATIONS:
+        body = sql if isinstance(sql, str) else " ".join(sql.values())
+        assert "visual_profiles" not in body, body[:120]
+
+
 def test_the_campaign_that_was_already_there_is_untouched(m9_database):
     path, older, adv_id = m9_database
     migrations.bootstrap(older)
@@ -310,9 +327,10 @@ def test_opening_the_database_repeatedly_is_a_no_op(m9_database):
     path, older, adv_id = m9_database
     migrations.bootstrap(older)
     after_first = _indexes(older)
+    first_version = _version(older)
     for _ in range(2):
         migrations.bootstrap(older)
-    assert _version(older) == 92
+    assert _version(older) == first_version == migrations.LATEST_VERSION
     assert _indexes(older) == after_first
     with older.begin() as conn:
         assert conn.execute(text("SELECT COUNT(*) FROM adventures")).scalar() == 1
@@ -365,7 +383,8 @@ def test_a_backup_of_the_upgraded_database_still_works(m9_database):
                 "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM visual_profiles").fetchone()[0] == 0
             assert copy_db.execute(
                 "SELECT title FROM adventures").fetchone()[0] == "An M9 campaign"
-            assert copy_db.execute("PRAGMA user_version").fetchone()[0] == 92
+            assert copy_db.execute("PRAGMA user_version").fetchone()[0] == (
+                migrations.LATEST_VERSION)
     finally:
         result.path.unlink(missing_ok=True)