sec_pending() suppressed any PENDING-N whose number appeared as a REVIEWED-N,
never checking the ruling was about that item. The two sequences have drifted:
REVIEWED-84 rules on PENDING-87. So PENDING-84 was invisible at wake on the very
morning the steward's pulling thread pointed at it, and closing it later produced
no visible count change because it had never been counted. Found 2026-08-01 at
wake, surfaced not fixed; register row 179.
Resolution now reads the PENDING each ruling names in its header. Rulings that
name none (REVIEWED-78, -81, -82) suppress nothing.
Extracted as ruled_pendings() so it is testable at all -- the logic was buried in
a file-reading routine with no way to exercise it. Five self-tests added,
including the 2026-08-01 bug as a regression control and an empty-input positive
control.
Bounded-change proof against the live files: 18 -> 19 visible. Three items
surfaced that were falsely hidden (PENDING-78, -81, -82); two stopped being shown
that are genuinely ruled (PENDING-87 by REVIEWED-84, PENDING-88 by REVIEWED-85 --
no REVIEWED-87 or -88 exists, so number-matching had never suppressed them).
That proof also caught an overclaim in this fix's own docstring, which asserted
the correction could only ever surface more items and never fewer. It corrects in
both directions. Comment repaired to say what the code does; the false version
would have been a comment promising behaviour the code does not deliver, in a
file whose purpose is to stop governance hiding from the steward.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuMjg3ipEVa3n8CoSzoyvc
