ADC Pool Level 01 Preview 结果审核（PROVISIONAL_NOT_AUTHORIZED_FOR_ADVANCEMENT） - #60

…eview

Both blockers accepted. Both were mine.

Blocker 1: the 22 HOLD_PENDING_CRC_LINKAGE rows carried blocking_evidence_gaps
EVGAP-02 only. The generator logic was backwards - it read "EVGAP-02 if in_index
else EVGAP-01;EVGAP-02" - when those 22 pairs are precisely the ones whose LOCK-01
came from ADC_surfaceome_reference@0.3.0, which has not passed SRCADM-01. PR #59
froze the extraction contract and nothing else: no database approved, no
extraction authorised, no gap lifted, no 22/19 verdict accepted. A downstream
reader consuming pool_level_01_preview.tsv alone would have concluded LOCK-01 was
formally passed with only CRC linkage outstanding. The target table had it right,
which makes the inconsistency more misleading than a uniform error would be. All
369 rows now carry EVGAP-01;EVGAP-02, verified at 0 of 369 missing EVGAP-01, and
the in-index reason states both pending gaps.

Blocker 2: the claim that every TSV carried provisional_only and
may_advance_to_level_02 on every row was factually wrong.
raw_clinical_contexts.tsv lacked may_advance_to_level_02 and
raw_enumeration_matrix.tsv lacked both. Not a wording defect: the Raw Matrix is
likely to be read on its own and would be misusable once separated from the
manifest. The schema is unified - all four TSVs now carry both columns on every
row, with no empty values and a single value each.

The non-blocking enhancement is taken too: raw_targets.tsv and
pool_level_01_preview.tsv now carry source_admission_status
NOT_ADMITTED_PENDING_SRCADM_01, so the governance state travels with the row
instead of living only at the manifest top level.

Counts are unchanged: 9 contexts, 41 targets, 369 pairs, 22 provisional and 19
hold, 22 HOLD_PENDING_CRC_LINKAGE and 347 RAW_MATRIX_ONLY, LOCK-03 unresolved
369/369, zero active, zero exclusions. The manifest is bumped to revision 2 with
the reason recorded; revision 1 checksums are superseded and all seven files were
re-hashed. Still no repository write, no Gate, no score, no ranking, no
recommendation, no gap lifted and no change to the Level 01 binding.

309 tests pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…l-level-01-preview-result

# Conflicts:
#	logs/worklog.md

The reviewer inspected the uploaded ZIP and found it was still revision 1: 22
rows carrying EVGAP-02 alone, two TSVs missing guard columns, and no revision
field in the manifest. The ruling is explicit that the fix logic itself is
correct and the problem is that the package under review is the wrong version.
Accepted, and the failure is mine in the delivery step: after revising to
revision 2 I updated the handoff, the PR body and the checksums but never
produced a corresponding uploadable package. A result review has to verify the
actual files, not the documentation about them; syncing the description without
syncing the object under review asks the reviewer to audit something they cannot
see.

Re-verified the on-disk revision 2 against all six acceptance criteria, all
passing: manifest revision 2; the seven SHA-256 values match appendix A exactly;
all four TSVs carry both guard columns with sole values true and false at 9, 41,
369 and 369 rows; all 369 pool rows carry EVGAP-01;EVGAP-02; the 22/19, 22/347
and 369-unresolved counts are unchanged; and there is no active state, no
accepted label, no Gate score, no T7 validation and no Level 02 advancement, with
t7_tumor_surface_validated holding only not_assessed_level_02_scope.

Added the packaged artefact at
external:result/gen_iet_adc_pool_level_01_preview_20260805T160125Z_revision2.zip,
24904 bytes, SHA-256
8687e8774b53fda1d3a6fdac38fc56cb0cc2fd198677db5a1f7d5d50a449e823, containing
exactly the seven output files. Its contents were read back out of the archive to
confirm revision 2, the gap string on all 369 rows, and the guard columns. Path
and digest are recorded in the handoff so which version was uploaded becomes a
checkable fact rather than an assertion.

Rule I am holding myself to from here: every revision of an external artefact in
a result-review PR must ship a version-stamped package with its own recorded
SHA-256. Editing the handoff and the PR body is not delivery.

309 tests pass. No repository write of artefacts, no gap lifted, no change to the
Level 01 binding.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>