A rule with a failing test reads failing whatever its other tests say, so a blocking rule whose tests are one failing and one not run is still a finding

What it means

A rule that names several tests takes one state from all of them. When any of those tests is failing, the rule is failing, and for a blocking rule that is a finding — even when another test it names was never run or declined to run. Otherwise the rule's state is the weakest of the tests that can carry proof.

How it works

evidence::freshness::aggregate is the one aggregation. It takes each part's state and whether the part can carry proof, and returns failing if any part is failing; otherwise the weakest part that can carry proof, by the states' declared order; otherwise the weakest part of all; and nothing for no parts. The rules report calls it with each test's rule state and whether a runner or a gate drives the test, after a missing path has already made the rule dangling and before a dispatched rule without a case is adjusted.

The first step exists because the declared order ranks failing above not run. A plain weakest-of over a failing test and a skipped one — which now reads not run — would read not run, which is not a finding, and the failure would be hidden behind an absence.

How to see it

majordomus-cli rules show <rule-id> --format json | jq '.proof.state, [.proof.tests[].state]'
majordomus-cli rules report --findings
bash test/run.sh 502_evidence_is_judged_at_the_presented_revision

The case adds a blocking rule naming two cases, records one failure and one skip, and asserts that the rule is failing and that the report lists it as a finding.

What it does not cover

It decides how states combine, not what each test's state is; that is the freshness table. A path nothing drives still counts only when it is all a rule names, as before.

The entry preflight recounts the rules corpus its own way until it is moved onto this function and onto the corpus verdict.

Why it exists

Making a skip read not run instead of failing fixed a false finding, and it opened a hole: a blocking rule whose tests were one failure and one skip would have read not run and lost its finding. Counter-evidence must never be outranked by the absence of evidence, so the precedence is written once, where every aggregation of states reads it.