Before an examination architecture is allowed to judge SCGA, the architecture itself was frozen and attacked. The question was not whether it looked sophisticated. The question was whether it could award more than its evidence legitimately earned. v0.4 was given a genuine opportunity to lose. It lost — and the loss was preserved.
Materially new primitive / layer / mechanism failure class: YES. Remaining materially false strongest-positive pathway: YES. SR-1 through SR-4: INDETERMINATE from v0.4 as supplied because the stopping-rule content required for independent application was not contained in the review object and was not inferred from its hash.
Object Fixed → Integrity Reconciled → Adversarial Attack → 5 Findings → 3 BLOCKING → Stopping Condition Not Established → Loss Preserved → Successor Must Earn a New Examination
Integrity before interpretation
The adverse result does not arise from ambiguity about which object was reviewed. The exact ZIP identity, package root and constituent manifest reconciled before the examination disposition was issued.
Exact ZIP SHA-256ac60830959a02007fd8c2d9f35c0eacb5e9c11f6abd95a10fda0570d1999c921
No finding is retroactively repaired inside this record. Any successor may respond prospectively, but v0.4 remains the historical object that received these findings.
B-01 · Stopping-rule content unavailable inside the frozen review objectBLOCKING
SR-1 through SR-4 could not legitimately be reconstructed from a hash or prior context. Formal SR satisfaction therefore remained INDETERMINATE.
B-02 · Dependency closure / inherited control semanticsBLOCKING
CP-008 depended on referenced control semantics that were not fully defined and frozen inside the review-object dependency closure.
An effective authority transition omitted from the frozen graph could preserve false present standing and therefore a materially false strongest-positive pathway.
M-01 · Claim-breadth generalisationMAJOR
The architecture required a frozen coverage/generalisation rule but did not yet establish a normative adequacy test showing when that generalisation was justified.
The architecture required proposition-level equivalence but did not yet establish the determination method by which semantic equivalence is earned rather than declared.
The frozen stopping condition did its job
The finish line was not negotiated after the result. v0.4 required zero BLOCKING findings, no materially new primitive-level failure class, and no remaining false-positive pathway before redesign could stop. The examination returned three BLOCKING findings, a new failure class, and a remaining false-positive pathway. Redesign therefore continues.
0 BLOCKING REQUIREDObserved: 3 BLOCKING. Condition not satisfied.
NO NEW FAILURE CLASS REQUIREDObserved: materially new primitive / layer / mechanism failure class = YES.
NO FALSE-POSITIVE PATHWAY REQUIREDObserved: a materially false strongest-positive pathway remains.
SR-1 THROUGH SR-4Not reconstructed from prior context or a hash. Formal state remained INDETERMINATE from the supplied v0.4 object.
CRITICAL EXAMINATION BOUNDARY: This is an adversarial finding against the frozen SCGA Examination Architecture v0.4. It is not, by itself, a finding that SCGA itself possesses or lacks the runtime properties that the examination architecture may ultimately be used to test. This phase asks whether the examiner is capable of awarding only what its evidence legitimately earns before that examiner is allowed to examine SCGA itself.
PARTICIPANT ACCEPTANCE · PUBLICATION AUTHORIZED
“v0.4 lost. So the examination record stays clean, and the successor now has to earn another attempt independently.”
Gary Williams accepted the adverse disposition without negotiation, reinterpretation or retrospective alteration and expressly authorized TA-14 to publish the result as a permanent public examination record. v0.4 remains frozen; its findings remain attached to it; successor work receives a separate identity and examination boundary.
Why this record matters
A governance system is not demonstrated only by the objects it supports. It is demonstrated by whether an adverse result can survive contact with the participant who owns the object. Here the integrity reconciled, the examiner found blocking defects, the participant accepted the loss, and history was not rewritten. That is the record.
TA-14 Exchange Activity
Public network activity
Live cumulative activity recorded across the public Exchange surface.
Refreshing
◎···VisitorsRecorded public visitors
◉···Page ViewsRecorded Exchange views
Institutional stateLIVE LEDGER COUNTS
···Registered governance records
···Published governance showrooms
···Countries observed
···Distinct Academy visits
···Distinct showroom visits
···AFA × EABA durable receipts
···AFA × EABA bounded reports
Activity and institutional-state counts only. Registration is not certification. Traffic is not execution evidence. Examination counts establish recorded artifacts, not universal efficacy.
◇
Network stateFOUNDING
Governance in execution · public Exchange surface online and recording cumulative activity.