{"type":"video","version":"1.0","html":"<iframe src=\"https://www.loom.com/embed/fdb8e5fe46594ac1bf37e7f9eec9dbc5\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1440\" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>","height":1440,"width":1920,"provider_name":"Loom","provider_url":"https://www.loom.com","thumbnail_height":1440,"thumbnail_width":1920,"thumbnail_url":"https://cdn.loom.com/sessions/thumbnails/fdb8e5fe46594ac1bf37e7f9eec9dbc5-739e0b41ca4c00f8.gif","duration":107.58,"title":"SpecGap Preserves Evidence Through Checks","description":"This Loom explains SpecGap’s approach to preserving disagreement in formal verification instead of collapsing it into false confidence. It describes how local structural checks may report no divergence while a Z-free implication check finds a counterexample, using the case where fsWrite and writeOther are both true. In the abstract model, the policy permits writing intent for bids, and SpecGap stops at evidence rather than verifying runtime systems or proving a sandbox safe. The artifact is replayable with 41 test passing, deterministic fixtures, report hashes, and static replay."}