Commit 1ed0155

each of the 4 new bridges (5→4 after empirical scope reduction per

generalist [chat L2461] + theologian [chat L2466] (B) decision):

Per pythia #86 + supervisor [chat L2469]: bridge inventory is a

COMPLETENESS ASSERTION (this set of N bridges is sufficient). Spec §3

empirical compile-clean enumeration is necessary but not sufficient —

W25 §5.3 lesson was that compile-clean inventory can have hidden gaps

(another bridge silently absorbs the drift). Step A falsification

catches inventory gaps BEFORE Step B implementation.

**Procedure (testkeeper):** at the post-Step-A HEAD (LITE SPECs

finalized, no Step B implementation yet), mutate one bridge signature

(add unused param to e.g.

`hir_builder_emit_call_method_exception_handler_inline_c`). The

mutation should be visible at expected call sites in any draft Step B C

body OR at the LITE SPEC's stated callers. Verify:

- BUILD_EXIT=2 with compile error at expected call site → bridge

inventory is correct (mutation caught at the right location)

- BUILD_EXIT=0 → bridge inventory has GAP (mutation silently absorbed

somewhere) → flag + reassess inventory before Step B

**Acceptance:** Step B begins ONLY if Step A falsification PASSES (drift

caught at expected location). Adds ~10min to W26 cycle but catches

inventory gaps at the boundary where they're cheapest to fix.

**General principle (per supervisor L2469 + theologian future-spec

amendment):** all future workstream specs require Step A falsification

test in their gate-completion criteria. Bridge inventory completeness

must be empirically falsified, not just enumerated.