Builder Impl Governance

Builder-Impl Governance — the conformance & verification-level bar

The Builder bar at the impl gate: does the implementation meet the frozen suite, and is each scenario verified at a level that earns confidence? Loaded by both faces. The SDD default for the builder impl bar; a plugin may bind its own, and this loads when the registry leaves builder/impl unbound.

The bar

• The bar is not self-set. Each check derives from the frozen suite — one per scenario — never free-authored from the producer's sense of done. The cold impl-judge re-derives the oracle independently (ADR-0016).
• Verify as high as it doesn't hurt. Choose each scenario's verification level to maximize confidence until cost, fragility, or feasibility bites: a cheap base, a thin e2e cap on the paths that matter, boundary (the external mocked) as the honest substitute where e2e is infeasible or unsafe. Record the level and why. The suite's overall pyramid shape is the architect's call (sdd:architect-impl-governance).
• Instrument subject → mutation-sweep-first. When the subject is itself a measurement or verification instrument — a fixture, mutation set, ablation generator, falsifier, judge, or check — a mutation sweep is the default verification method and reading is supplementary. This overrides the verify-as-high default above for an instrument subject only; a non-instrument subject keeps that default. Reading an instrument's own blind spot back to itself is a weak oracle — a "cannot-fail" defect survives every read and dies to the first mutation the instrument fails to catch (the cold-instrument doctrine, stated in full on the impl-producer node).
• A graded subject still yields a boolean. Reach the per-scenario boolean through a rubric + threshold over N runs; the rubric stays out of the .feature.
• No green-by-tampering. Passing means the behavior holds, not that a check was edited to pass; the frozen suite is never modified to make the implementation conform.
• Deterministic combinatorics go to units. Where the domain has a deterministic inner layer, cover its combinatorial space (truth tables, matrices) with unit tests drawn from the inner rules — the pyramid's base, separate from the one-verification-per-scenario duty. Missing that coverage is its own finding and withholds the pass. A non-deterministic subject has no such layer — verify at the acceptance level only.

Key points (read-check)

1. The bar is not self-set — checks derive from the frozen suite, one per scenario; the judge re-derives the oracle independently.
2. Verify as high as it doesn't hurt — cheap base, thin e2e cap, boundary as substitute where e2e is infeasible/unsafe; record level and why. An instrument subject inverts this: mutation-sweep-first, reading supplementary.
3. No green-by-tampering — passing is the behavior holding, never an edited check or a modified suite.
4. Deterministic combinatorics go to units (the pyramid base); missing that coverage withholds the pass; a non-deterministic subject verifies at the acceptance level only.