nx_wiredclaim_lib.nx

nx_wiredclaim_lib.nx -- IS AN ORGAN ACTUALLY CALLED, OR ONLY CLAIMED TO BE? NO main() ON PURPOSE. THE CLASS THIS EXISTS FOR is the ecosystem's most-repeated defect: a capability that is BUILT, GATED, and DESCRIBED AS WIRED, but has no production call site -- so it is, in effect, the baseline it was meant to beat. Banked instances: public registration open while gate-proven ls_signup_allowed sat unwired (1785445704); the pre-deploy gate computed, published and structurally unreachable from the act it guards (1785453118); and F881, where nx_magicratchet is asserted "wired into /api/build" in FOUR comments while grep finds ZERO call sites in the source AND ZERO in the deployed mgmt binary, and a two-build experiment shows the enforcement does not fire (1785530277). METHOD, AND WHY IT IS DELIBERATELY NOT AN LLM: the 2026 literature on code/comment inconsistency reports that plain LLM judging yields unacceptably high false positives, because a model reads the normal gap between high-level prose and detailed code as a defect (DocPrism). The sound technique is CASCADE-style DOCUMENT TESTING: turn the claim into something executable and run it. This organ is the STATIC half of that -- it decides, over a corpus grep, whether every mention of an organ is PROSE. A claim with no call site is not proof of absence, it is the trigger to run the behavioural test. INPUT is the output of `nx_shelltool grep <organ> <dir> nx out=<f>.out` -- lines of `path:lineno:text`. Composing the grep rather than walking keeps this organ free of a corpus cap it would have to be honest about, and reuses the ONE canonical search path. u26a0DECLARED ENVELOPE (L011): line-shape heuristics, not a parser. A call written across a line break, or dispatched through a runtime-assembled path (the way a builder may exec `_offc/<name>.elf`), reads as NO CALL SITE. That is why the verdict for zero-calls-plus-claims is CLAIMED-UNWIRED -- a REVIEW TRIGGER naming the behavioural test to run -- and never "proven absent". license_tier: ORIGINAL No hw writes (Rule 26).