ARCADIA-Studio/harness/experiments/placement-clearance-20260925/final-review.md

Final clearance evidence and claim review

2026-09-25. Read-only review of harness/experiments/placement-clearance-20260925/results.md, the final related harness/DECISIONS.md section, run02 analysis/receipt, independent result review, gate receipts/logs and evidence archive. No compiler, routing/repair execution or GUI actions.

Verdict: no material overclaim, missing failure or unsupported adoption claim found. Ready for the parent's documentation checkpoint, with local-only publication status retained until an actual successful push/readback. The record correctly separates solving the named mandatory-lead conflict from general layout quality and native usability.

Verified facts:

• Gates14–17 identify tested executable source 074051261a0beee1047e2b5624c879deef7813bc, exit0, unchanged inputs and no runner failure. Gate14 log counts5+4+13+18=40 integration tests; gate15 counts130 library and2 example tests. Optimized build and strict Clippy success are recorded. No broader-suite claim is made.
• Both runner receipts contain18 completed, non-timeout, exit0 children with unchanged bound inputs and byte-exact released route control. This does not turn unsupported candidate results into successes. Primary run02 analysis accounts for all17 scenes:12 supported and5 workshop-topology refusals.
• Only sparse ELK changes node geometry, moving8 nodes and23 ports with no side changes. The two original mixed scenes change route/bounds metrics through the declared reset without node/port movement; results explicitly avoid attributing that to clearance repair.
• Sparse lead incompatibility, NoClearPath and unrelated-node penetration each change1→0 while overlap remains0. Reported regressions20→22 crossings,55→58 contacts,666→761 shared length and0→1 label/stroke intersection match primary analysis and independent review. The stated outcome does not infer native unreadability or improvement from those metrics alone.
• The independent result review supplies complete Project conservation and port-identity checks beyond the observer's broad booleans, independent raw-contact/penetration arithmetic, and recorded repeat/roundtrip coverage. Documentation keeps automatic side changes, compounds, opposite-order rejection, native tracing and timing guarantees outside the established scope.
• Gate13's invalid primitive DataType fixtures and the corrected Record fixture are explicit. The first runner's cp1252 decoding issue is preserved, with81 altered string leaves across three workshop seeds, no numeric differences, and run02 designated primary. Unsupported topology, previous quality problems, and publication failure are not omitted.

Archive independently read back: placement-clearance-07405126.zip,195 members,3887975 bytes, SHA256 0589a3d413596eec697bab37934d504b055bcf2ab53a0ccc0248ddc107e4a71c. ZIP CRC test passes and every member's byte count/SHA matches manifest.json. Gate13 receipts and both the run01 seed audit and run02 independent audit are present. This confirms the archive integrity claim; it does not add a new execution or usability result. This final review is outside that immutable archive.

One minor wording issue: reproduction says “archived v2 collector” when the intended executable workflow is the v2 experiment runner. The archive collector packages existing evidence. Prefer naming that runner or changing “collector” to “runner”; this is not a correctness blocker.

Independently inspected the subsequent clearance.rs diff: only the16-factor work-charge comment changes, with no executable statement changed. The source review already treated it as a weighted budget, not a conservative bound on actual scans/projection work or wall time. Executable gates remain attributed to07405126; document the later comment explicitly rather than claiming a fresh tested source pin.

Reviewed document hashes at inspection (subsequent wording updates may change them):

• results.md: 7ac0155cb52acd2a3b0ba9782c0b7387a3efe19daa0d6a9346e9acae70bd3d7e.
• result-review.md: a368b5d3d133092723918874ed0dda669109654fe37e712ea6425a1ecac1d1ee.
• DECISIONS.md: 5ebc04454e9f736bde41befa9575a06c08c08d3539b5c89fa59b82be05b0860c.

The no-adoption decision is proportionate: retain released routing and arrangement, keep repair example-only, and use final-port/lead compatibility as a necessary constraint in future initial coordinate assignment. No issue closure, production integration, Linux verification or remote publication is established here.