The confuser probe's two distractor-quantity wrongs (0014 ->300, 0016 ->3840)
have no clean tight fix: the `for` cue licenses both the 0014 distractor product
and the correct train-0021 product, and a target+foreign-unit refusal rule breaks
the canonical train-0003 boxes x erasers product. Telling a real multiplier from a
distractor by cue is the cue-precision problem ADR-0177 measured as not-yet-solvable
-- a tight rule here would be a reactive surface patch (the overfitting trap).
This ADR scopes the general, non-reactive alternative: let the wrong=0 DISAGREEMENT
rule do the refusing. Pool self-verifying candidates across composers so a blunt
product reading and a competing additive reading of the same problem disagree ->
refuse; legitimate products (0021/0003) have no competing reading, so they still
commit -- the structural property that distinguishes them, expressed without a cue.
Scoping surfaced two things a one-line plan would have missed:
- Completeness FORCES the distractor into every reading, so naive pooling changes
nothing. The mechanism needs a narrow, commit-INELIGIBLE completeness exemption
for isolated-foreign quantities -- it can only buy a refusal, never an answer, so
the commit-path completeness guarantee (ADR-0175's 9->2 multi-step fix) is intact.
- MS-1 Target exposes the union of body unit-shapes, NOT the question's asked-for
unit (verified). The exemption is therefore keyed to a reading's used-operand
units, not an asked unit that does not exist.
- 0016's distractor sits in the anchor-position clause, so it needs distractor-aware
anchor selection too: 0014 is the guaranteed win (wrong 5->4); 0016 lands (->3)
only when anchor-skip is built. Doc declines to claim both before that is proven.
Spec only, no code. Sealed lane; serving 3/47/0 untouched.
a8f9e3685d