# This standard, measured by `joulespec/1`

Not part of this standard's own conformance pack. The vectors beside it
(`../meta.json`, `../receipts.jsonl`) are what an implementation of *this*
standard round-trips. These files answer a different question: **how well is
each conformance item of §8 actually evidenced, and what did establishing that
cost?**

Produced by [`../joulespec.toml`](../joulespec.toml):

```
joulespec harvest --manifest conformance/v1/joulespec.toml \
                  --out conformance/v1/joulespec --require-grade E3
```

The clauses are read from [`../../../SPEC.md`](../../../SPEC.md) §8 rather than
copied into the manifest, so the manifest cannot drift from the specification:
reword a conformance item and its obligation address moves, and the witness
bound to the old wording stops applying.

Every item of §8 — C1 through C5 and the negative pack — reaches **`E3`**:
each is mapped to a named check, and each check is on record *failing* against
a declared counter-artifact, so its passing carries information. Attestation
is reported **absent**, not `A0`: no work units were declared, so no
implementer is known, and absence of information about who built something is
not evidence that someone else checked it.

**These files are a measurement, not a vector.** Their energy figures come
from a wall clock and are graded `Estimator`, so re-running the harvest
produces different microjoules and therefore different receipt bytes. Nothing
here should be diffed byte-for-byte.

## What producing it found

The first counter-artifact written for C1 aimed at `Tier::LADDER`, on the
assumption that the router iterated that constant. It does not — the constant
is read only by the monotonicity checks, and the router sorts the solvers it
was handed. So `trivial_closes_at_t0_no_waste` passed with the constant
reordered, and the harvester reported that the check could not see its
subject.

That report was correct and the manifest was wrong. The distinction between
"this check is weak" and "this mutation missed the code path" is the
operator's to make; a producer can only say which it observed. Re-aimed at
`Router::new`'s sort, the same check fails immediately — so the check was
strong all along, and C1's evidence is real rather than assumed.