§4.3's generalisation was stated and then not applied to the manifest that
prompted it. brokkr-smithy-dev did the audit: most fields are intent-only, and
the one pairing that would have caught the §4.1 cache failure -- the mask's sha
against the loss-token delta -- existed by accident, because someone had asked
for an encode report for unrelated reasons.
Adds the audit table, and the rider that matters more than the table: put the
observed check where it can actually FAIL. chat_template_sha256's pair is the
sha of the string the tokenizer carries, but asserting that in the parent one
line after assigning the file to the tokenizer compares a value to itself. It
belongs in the encode worker -- a different process, across a pickle boundary,
where an unset config key silently leaves every worker rendering through the
checkpoint's own template.
vh
dbca9a3c66