`verification/tk11326/dtd-channel/codex-debate.txt`

9 lines

**PROSECUTOR:** B risks treating a failed requirement as an administrative footnote. The 63 Google mismatches and activation-time publication dates support a plausible causal case that loading introduced unintended distribution. An incomplete baseline weakens the restoration explanation as much as it weakens the removal justification. Calling loading “complete” could conceal that the authorized outcome remains unverified. Deferring cap verification and lock release also leaves operational obligations unresolved. The strongest alternative is to report the entire operation as incomplete until these checks establish compliance.

**DEFENDER:** That challenges an unconditional success claim, which B explicitly rejects. B preserves the Google assertion as FAIL and the overall result as partial while recognizing independently verified storefront loading. Neither publication timing nor an incomplete baseline establishes which Google assignments were newly introduced; removing all 63 could erase legitimate prior assignments. The stated constraint requires explicit direction for those removals. Recording the affected products and preparing a diagnostic proposal preserves a path to resolution without guessing at production state. Outstanding cap and lock checks must remain visibly pending.

**JUDGE:** The prosecutor establishes that B must not become a blanket completion claim, but does not establish grounds to overturn its actual recommendation. B separates verified loading from failed and pending requirements. The evidence supports investigating unintended Google distribution; it does not support identifying assignments safe to remove.

FINAL: KEEP

The controlling argument is that uncertainty about prior Google assignments cannot authorize removals expressly requiring direction. Report storefront loading as verified, retain Google compliance as FAIL and the overall operation as partial, and explicitly identify cap verification and owned-lock release as unresolved. This preserves both factual accuracy and the authorization boundary.