I added "a concurrent write is not lost to another method's failure" to the
conformance suite to guard the fail-open the Task 11 review demonstrated. The
implementer reported they could not make it fail against the reverted code,
across 600 stress iterations. They were right.
I reproduced the underlying defect directly - forcing the transaction to open
before the bare write gives "revoke resolved without error: true" with the
role still present - so the mechanism is real. But the test cannot reach it:
Promise.all in one process does not reliably land the bare write inside the
open transaction, and grant() never fails on its own. The test passed against
the defective implementation, which is exactly the false assurance this suite
exists to prevent.
Replaced with a property that is actually guaranteed and adapter-agnostic: a
rejected write leaves unrelated state intact. The rollback hazard itself is
prevented structurally, by the store using no transactions, and that is now
stated in a comment rather than pretended to be under test.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ClintchizandClaude Opus 5
134c5fa4bc