`verification/dtd/codex-debate.txt`

9 lines

**PROSECUTOR:** A confuses evidence against blanket stripping with evidence that these specific corrections are right. The 1,327 identity collapses demonstrate danger, but do not establish the proper values for the 52 Shopify products. Canonical suffix retention in 26/26 cases also does not prove the staging-to-product mapping. A patch affecting three scripts could change other generations unintentionally. Packaging 26 staging changes and 104 metafield changes as “verified” risks giving an unproven migration the appearance of certainty.

**DEFENDER:** Those objections establish what A must verify; they do not defeat its approach. A authorizes preparation of a patch and an exact comparison, while retaining explicit approval before data writes. Verification must establish each product mapping, justify each replacement against canonical values, and demonstrate that other generations remain unchanged. A historical-only draft leaves the stripping scripts unresolved, while broader stripping faces direct evidence of identity loss. A addresses both the proposed repairs and their cause without authorizing premature execution.

**JUDGE:** The prosecutor successfully challenges any claim that the supplied counts alone prove correctness. However, A makes verification and write approval prerequisites, preserves canonical values, and keeps TK11246 blocked until execution and verification. Its scope accommodates the necessary checks.

FINAL: KEEP

The controlling argument is that A advances a bounded, reviewable correction while withholding data writes until verification and explicit approval. The evidence supports rejecting blanket stripping, not automatically accepting every replacement; A remains sound because its required verification must close that gap and demonstrate preservation of other generations before execution.