test: protect revision escalation semantics

Author: yha9806

.claude/skills/thesis-control/SKILL.md

@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ The author decides whether to accept, partially accept, revise, or rollback. Do
 
 ## Revision Escalation Rule
 
-Treat three unsuccessful attempts on the same edit contract as an operational escalation threshold, not as evidence that every task fails after three turns. Count an attempt when its drift decision is `revise` or `rollback`, or when the author rejects the result against the same contract. Clarifying discussion and unexecuted proposals do not count.
+Treat three unsuccessful attempts on the same edit contract as an operational escalation threshold, not as evidence that every task fails after three turns. Only count an attempt when its drift decision is `revise` or `rollback`, or when the author rejects the result against the same contract. Clarifying discussion and unexecuted proposals do not count.
 
 After three unsuccessful attempts, stop. Do not apply a fourth prose patch.
 

docs/product/lost-in-conversation-writing-control-design.md

@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ If any of these occur during the bench run, the outcome should be recorded as a
 
 ### Revision Escalation
 
-Three unsuccessful attempts against the same edit contract are an operational stop threshold, not a research claim that every task fails after three turns. An attempt counts when the author rejects the result or the drift decision is `revise` or `rollback`. At that point the workflow must not apply a fourth prose patch.
+Three unsuccessful attempts against the same edit contract are an operational stop threshold, not a research claim that every task fails after three turns. Only author rejection or a `revise` or `rollback` drift decision counts as an unsuccessful attempt; clarification and unexecuted proposals do not count. At that point the workflow must not apply a fourth prose patch.
 
 The workflow may escalate earlier when claim drift, an evidence gap, an unclear spine, loss of the latest author-approved version, or version contamination is already visible. Before any further edit, it consolidates the valid requirements, compares them with the control packet and approved source, classifies the problem, and asks the author to approve the next action.
 

plugins/academic-writing-toolkit/skills/thesis-control/SKILL.md

@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ The author decides whether to accept, partially accept, revise, or rollback. Do
 
 ## Revision Escalation Rule
 
-Treat three unsuccessful attempts on the same edit contract as an operational escalation threshold, not as evidence that every task fails after three turns. Count an attempt when its drift decision is `revise` or `rollback`, or when the author rejects the result against the same contract. Clarifying discussion and unexecuted proposals do not count.
+Treat three unsuccessful attempts on the same edit contract as an operational escalation threshold, not as evidence that every task fails after three turns. Only count an attempt when its drift decision is `revise` or `rollback`, or when the author rejects the result against the same contract. Clarifying discussion and unexecuted proposals do not count.
 
 After three unsuccessful attempts, stop. Do not apply a fourth prose patch.
 

scripts/test.sh

@@ -1089,13 +1089,23 @@ import sys
 from pathlib import Path
 
 text = Path(sys.argv[1]).read_text(encoding="utf-8")
-required = (
-    "## Revision Escalation Rule",
+start = text.index("## Revision Escalation Rule")
+end = text.index("\n## Output Patterns", start)
+section = text[start:end]
+required_clauses = (
     "same edit contract",
     "three unsuccessful attempts",
     "operational escalation threshold",
+    "Only count an attempt when its drift decision is `revise` or `rollback`, or when the author rejects the result against the same contract.",
+    "Clarifying discussion and unexecuted proposals do not count.",
     "Do not apply a fourth prose patch",
     "Escalate earlier",
+    "section spine cannot be stated consistently",
+    "requested claim lacks supporting evidence",
+    "claim, caveat, or scope boundary outside the contract",
+    "latest author-approved version cannot be identified",
+    "conflicting requirements indicate version contamination",
+    "spine card, evidence boundaries, current contract, and latest author-approved version",
     "underspecified or conflicting intent",
     "local execution failure",
     "structural mismatch",
@@ -1105,8 +1115,9 @@ required = (
     "local patch",
     "section-level restructure",
     "full reframing",
+    "Create a separate branch or manuscript version only when the approved scope requires structural work.",
 )
-missing = [phrase for phrase in required if phrase not in text]
+missing = [phrase for phrase in required_clauses if phrase not in section]
 if missing:
     raise SystemExit("missing revision-escalation guidance: " + ", ".join(missing))
 PY