# Code Review R012 — Step 5: Testing & Verification

Verdict: **REVISE**

I attempted the requested full baseline diff command, but the supplied full SHA `aad8c0117c535142d608598e274f5a07c2daffb1` is not present in this worktree. I used the matching available baseline `aad8c01c7669ea92455fceca027415612cbed246` (`aad8c01`) for review.

Commands run:

- `git diff aad8c01..HEAD --name-only`
- `git diff aad8c01..HEAD`
- `go test ./internal/analysis ./internal/tools`
- `make test`
- `make build`
- `make lint`
- `git diff --check aad8c01..HEAD`
- `git diff --check`

The verification commands currently pass, and the direct lint failure from unused `encodeAnalyzerResponse` is fixed. However, Step 5 still leaves task-contract and audit-trail issues unresolved.

## Findings

1. **Mandatory zero-value analyzer `_meta` coverage is still missing.**  
   The only code/test change in Step 5 changes `TestShapeAnalyzerResponseIncludesMandatoryMeta` to call `encodeAnalyzerResponse`, but it still uses `analyzerDemoInput()` with populated metadata (`source_tools: ["get_wellness_data"]`, `n: 7`, `missing_days: 2`, `formula_ref` set) at `internal/tools/analyzer_common_test.go:14-28` and `internal/tools/analyzer_common_test.go:64-79`. The existing helper test also exercises clamped negative counts with `insufficient_sample: true`, not the minimal mandatory JSON contract (`internal/analysis/meta_test.go:8-36`). The task mission and completion criteria require golden coverage proving mandatory `_meta` fields survive even when empty/zero/false, especially `source_tools: []` instead of `null`, `n: 0`, `missing_days: 0`, `insufficient_sample: false`, and omitted `formula_ref`. Add a minimal/zero-value shaped-response or marshal test, preferably with a golden fixture, before considering Step 5 complete.

2. **`STATUS.md` records review verdicts as APPROVE even when the review files say REVISE, including the new Step 5 review.**  
   The newly added `.reviews/R011-plan-step5.md` says `Verdict: **REVISE**` at line 3, but `STATUS.md:104` records `R011` as `APPROVE` and `STATUS.md:135` logs `Review R011 | plan Step 5: APPROVE`. The same incorrect APPROVE values remain for R006-R010 in `STATUS.md:99-103` and `STATUS.md:130-134`, despite those review files also being `REVISE`. This makes the task audit trail unreliable and contradicts R011's explicit instruction to reconcile the historical verdicts. Update the Reviews table and Execution Log to preserve the actual review verdicts, and add separate follow-up rows for fixes/verification rather than rewriting failed reviews as approvals.

