OVERSIZE PROBE — 6219e04d4c00
Claim: an unplaceable oversized piece 'is appended to
a fresh batch without any size guard'.

Budget (max_chars): 40
Crafted section: head = 179 chars (>= budget), total = 209 chars

_split_section -> 1 piece(s), unplaceable=True
_batch_sections_detailed -> batches=[209], incomplete=True
ASSERTION 1 HELD: batching flags the unplaceable section incomplete — the size guard exists and fires (the flag is what the claim denies).

run_review over the section (budget 40):
  truncated (batching incomplete) = True
  coverage.complete = False
  degraded = True
  gate = pass
  first gate reason: 'coverage incomplete: section(s) could not be placed within the batch budget; 0 file/lens omission(s) — run marked degraded'
  provider calls made: 2; the section text was sent in 2 of them
ASSERTION 2 HELD: the run is degraded, coverage is recorded incomplete, and the gate reasons state the cause in plain text — the loud path.

EVIDENCE (recorded, not asserted away): the batch that
carries the unplaceable section is 209 chars — larger than the budget. The design sends the
section WHOLE rather than truncating content, and pays
for it with the incomplete flag + degraded run + stated
reason above. Nothing is silent; no content is cut.

CONTRAST — placeable oversized section (small head, 30 long body lines) at budget 400:
  batches=[347, 347, 347, 347, 347, 347, 347, 205], incomplete=False
  every batch <= 400: True
  all body content present across batches: True

PROBE OUTCOME: both guard assertions held. The claim's
mechanism — 'without any size guard' — is rebutted: the
guard is the unplaceable flag, which forces incomplete
coverage and a degraded, reason-stating run. Supports
the pre-filled recommendation: sustain refutation
('designed loud path'), owner ratifies (authority-
affecting: coverage accounting).
