The job clears a below-floor account's rows nightly, but the read path
trusted whatever row was on disk between passes. So for up to a day
after an account deleted entries back under the floor, GET
/api/mood/prognosis returned present:true with a value the account no
longer had the data to support — and worse, under a stage the row
implied ("insufficient" / "learning") that is not in the published enum,
which fails a strict client decode of the whole payload.
The read path now re-reads the ladder and returns the absence shape
below the floor, exactly as the job would, so the two agree and no
out-of-enum stage can reach the wire. The present type's stage is
narrowed to the three rungs that carry a value, so the compiler enforces
it too.
The integration case that missed this ran the job before reading, which
is precisely why it was silent. The new case deletes entries back into
the learning band and reads WITHOUT running the job, with the row still
proven on disk, and asserts present:false with no stage. Watched red:
before the fix it returned present:true with a predicted value.
The snapshot gains the day's two readings with the age of the second
one, through the same reader the page uses, so the page and the
assistant cannot disagree about what today's comparison is. The
freshness rule is the shared one: a comparison about the day before
yesterday carries the date it is about and an instruction not to state
it as today. Absence is a present field rather than a missing key —
a model told "there is none yet" says so, and a model told nothing
estimates one. The wording rule travels with the values, because a model
handed a number and no instruction writes the sentence its training
suggests, and about a forecast that sentence is a causal one.
The contract publishes the resolved value: the expected figure, the
band, the count, the deviation against the band, the age, and the
contributions that carried weight. Nothing is left for a client to
re-derive — two clients deriving the same figure about somebody's health
record is how they start disagreeing about it. The description carries
the observational wording and the display rule: the count goes wherever
the value goes.
The end-to-end proof runs against real Postgres and reads the table
rather than a return value: nothing written a day short of the
threshold, a banded and counted row on the day it crosses, the
provisional label dropped at sixty days, the rows cleared when the
module goes off, the rows cleared when entries are deleted back below
the threshold, and an older pass's row replaced rather than left beside
a fresh one. A delegate holding only the mind section is refused, and
the assertion is on the response bytes.
Marc-André Bombeck