The four comparative coverage rows for the reframe and derived families state a two-clause Rule (never reach the bundle AND the manifest says so) while only the manifest clause is falsified; the unfalsified leak half is disclosed in a code comment, not in the row's Gap field the matrix header names as the place for an unfalsifiable claim

The four comparative coverage rows for the reframe and derived families state a two-clause Rule (never reach the bundle AND the manifest says so) while only the manifest clause is falsified; the unfalsified leak half is disclosed in a code comment, not in the row's Gap field the matrix header names as the place for an unfalsifiable claim

Grounds

• pursued: every coverage row states one rule and is either caught or a declared gap; a row whose Rule claims a leak its Caught mechanism does not produce would show it wrong