Derive verifier navigation from installed checker metadata

[yuelgrace1810-ops]

What changed

• derive producer-to-independent-verifier navigation from installed typed checker declarations;
• expose reciprocal links only when both endpoints are installed and policy-visible;
• preserve manually declared non-checker navigation while rejecting self-links, duplicates, and conflicting declarations;
• compact related-capability metadata deterministically before dropping ranked matches, domains, or other match metadata;
• expose related_capabilities_truncated and truncation_reason in both structured and text discovery responses;
• apply the same bounded contract to exact CONTRACT and FULL inspection, with one top-level relationship projection rather than an unbounded FULL-view duplicate.

Why

Held-out graph-reliability and modular-residue investigations found producers but missed their existing independent checkers. The catalog projection maintained a small manual table instead of carrying the authoritative producer/checker pairings already declared by installation metadata. At the same time, a large relationship set could make math.find exceed its response budget or discard more valuable ranked data without a relationship-specific signal.

This revision derives checker navigation from typed declarations and treats relationship metadata as optional bounded context. It does not infer links from names or lexical similarity.

Security and policy boundary

Relationships are added only after capability policy projection. Targets must be installed, available, visible, and present in the same projected catalog. Navigation metadata does not authorize a checker or change assurance: producers remain COMPUTED, and only existing operator-authorized independent checkers may return VERIFIED.

Results

• authoritative installed producer/checker pairs: 56;
• reciprocal before: 4/56;
• reciprocal after: 56/56;
• missing after: 0;
• relationship suffixes are removed deterministically from lower-ranked matches first;
• exact CONTRACT and FULL inspection remain within the published byte budget and report truncation explicitly.

Validation

• focused MCP compaction regressions: 4 passed;
• MCP adapter/catalog suite: 10 passed;
• composition relationship suite: 3 passed;
• make check: 870 unit tests passed with lint, formatting, complexity, and mypy;
• make check-static: dependency, dead-code, architecture, and package-build checks passed;
• git diff --check: passed.

An independent exact-diff review found two response-bounding gaps. The final tree fixes both and also removes the FULL-view duplicate identified in the one follow-up review.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 913c9b1e9e

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9fb46e12a9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4de669397b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 38d8e24afb

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 61d55ff18c

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 4cf16ebd77

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".