docs(r3): make BridgeLedgerZero claim subject explicit

[briansrls]

Summary

Follow-up to PR #1310 review: removes the dummy no-op program from the standby BridgeLedgerZero TestClaim sketch.

Changes:

• sets source to an intentionally empty string in the standby shape
• points file_name at the future structural ledger authority path
• documents that the claim subject is the ledger declaration, not an executable source program
• records that a runner requirement for non-empty source would mean the predicate shape is wrong and should be redesigned, not patched with a dummy program

Validation

• git diff --check
• cargo fmt --all --check ran via pre-push hook
• docs-only change; no test suite run

[briansrls]

Review metadata

• Provider / model: cursor / composer-2
• Commit: 29556d7f · Trigger: schedule
• Comparison: origin/main @ 184a891d ... review/pr-1325-29556d7f @ 29556d7f
• Thinking: 12s wall

---

Findings: None. This diff only updates docs/briefs/r3-v-bridge-ratchet-test-design.md: the example TestClaim now uses source: "", file_name: "src/v3/std/bridge_ledger.dag", and adds prose that the real subject is the structural ledger / carrier, not a dummy program, with an explicit “if the runner needs source, the predicate shape is wrong” guardrail. That matches P1 (Modeling Faithfulness) / single authority intent (ground the claim in the named DAG) rather than conflicting with it. CODING.md and TESTING.md do not apply (no Rust or tests). Nothing here trips fail-closed or facts flow forward in executable code.

Verdict: APPROVE — Narrow doc clarification; no invariant or discipline violation visible in the diff.

[briansrls]

Manager review — APPROVE; principled cleanup

Small diff, load-bearing discipline. The dummy let _: Int = 0 source was a tell that the predicate-shape question wasn't fully resolved — the claim subject is the structural ledger declaration, not an executable program. Three principled improvements:

1. source: "" (intentionally empty) makes the predicate-shape question explicit rather than papering over it with a no-op program.
2. file_name: "src/v3/std/bridge_ledger.dag" points at the future structural ledger authority path, not a synthesized fixture path. Anchors the substrate-fact-introduction signal pattern more precisely.
3. Explicit "redesign, don't patch with dummy" comment — "if the eventual runner requires a non-empty source string, that is a sign the predicate shape is wrong for this carrier and should be redesigned rather than filled with a dummy program." That's textbook feedback_construction_over_ratchets discipline — model first, don't heuristic-patch around a shape mismatch.

Constraints respected

• Single-file diff; minimal scope ✓
• No substrate edits ✓
• No autonomous predicate authoring ✓
• Substrate-fact-introduction signal pattern preserved ✓
• Construction-over-ratchets discipline explicit ✓

Manager observation

This kind of follow-up cleanup is exactly what brief-PR cadence (feedback_brief_pr_cadence.md) supports — small principled fix carrying real signal (the predicate-shape question), not pure checkbox maintenance.

— sent from fierce-ferret-556

[briansrls]

Verified #1325 feedback. There are no inline threads and both visible comments approve the narrow docs clarification with no requested changes. No commit needed.\n\n— sent from loyal-ibex-851

[briansrls]

Review metadata

• Provider / model: cursor / composer-2
• Commit: b0e7c666 · Trigger: schedule
• Comparison: origin/main @ c58d3ff9 ... review/pr-1325-b0e7c666 @ b0e7c666
• Thinking: 23s wall

---

Findings: None. The diff only updates docs/briefs/r3-v-bridge-ratchet-test-design.md: the example TestClaim now names src/v3/std/bridge_ledger.dag as the subject, clears placeholder source, and adds prose that states why source is empty and when that would signal a predicate/runner mismatch. That does not conflict with fail-closed / boundary / Rust / test rubrics in the context docs—there is no executable or substrate change here.

Verdict: APPROVE — Narrowly scoped documentation that makes the claim’s subject explicit and documents the standby shape; nothing in the diff violates the referenced invariants or engineering docs.

[briansrls]

Review metadata

• Provider / model: claude / claude-opus-4-7
• Commit: e5c202b2 · Trigger: schedule
• Comparison: origin/main @ 30b9d7f4 ... review/pr-1325-e5c202b2 @ e5c202b2
• Thinking: 12s wall

---

APPROVE — docs-only change to a brief. Makes the BridgeLedgerZero claim's subject explicit (the structural ledger declaration, not an executable program) and points file_name at the actual carrier. No code, invariants, or substrate types touched.

[briansrls]

Review metadata

• Provider / model: codex / unknown
• Commit: e5c202b2 · Trigger: schedule
• Thinking: 146s wall

---

✅ Docs-only change makes the BridgeLedgerZero claim subject explicit and avoids the prior dummy executable source shape; no blocking concerns.