# Findings And Verdicts

Audit findings should be concrete enough to act on, but the format should not be
heavier than the risk requires.

## Findings

Use stable finding IDs for material findings:

```text
FIND-001
FIND-002
```

Use file lines, record IDs, claim IDs, evidence IDs, diff refs, screenshots, or
paths when practical.

A useful finding usually says:

- what was observed
- why it matters
- what claim, scope, evidence, behavior, risk, or surface boundary it challenges
- what follow-up would reduce the risk

Severity and confidence are optional. Use them when they clarify priority,
uncertainty, or triage.

Use `FIND-*` IDs for low-severity notes, nits, or local suggestions only when a
consuming ticket needs to cite them.

## No Findings

An audit with no findings should say so explicitly.

No findings means this Ralph review pass did not identify material blockers or
concerns within the audited scope. It does not mean the target is accepted, closed,
or correct outside that scope.

## Verdicts

Verdict is prose first. Use a simple label when it helps retrieval:

- `clear`: no material findings within audited scope
- `concerns`: findings or risks exist, but the consuming surface may be able to
  disposition them
- `changes-needed`: follow-up appears needed before acceptance, closure, or reuse
- `inconclusive`: target, context, evidence, or scope was insufficient to judge

The explanation matters more than the label.

Audit verdicts are not ticket statuses, acceptance decisions, policy decisions,
or closure states.

## Consuming Findings

Treat audit findings as claims to verify.

For each material finding, the consuming surface should decide whether it is:

- resolved by a change or clarification
- accepted as residual risk with authority and reason
- superseded by newer evidence, changed scope, or a corrected record
- converted to follow-up work with a ticket or related record
- rejected as invalid with evidence

Tickets own closure-gate disposition. Specs own behavior changes. Plans own
strategy changes. Evidence owns new observations. Constitution owns durable
judgment. Knowledge owns settled explanation.

Do not record those dispositions as audit-owned state unless the audit itself is
withdrawing or correcting a finding.

## Withdrawing Or Correcting Findings

When an audit finding was wrong, clarify it in the audit record or create a newer
audit that supersedes the old interpretation.

Name the reason:

- misread target
- stale evidence
- changed scope
- newer source state
- incorrect inference
- stronger evidence found later

Preserve consumed review history. Do not silently rewrite an audit after another
record has cited or acted on the finding.
