Done Means Executed — Not Inspected

The failure this prevents: asserting something is finished based on reading the code that would run, or on a related path that does run, instead of running the real thing. The tell is a sentence like "skills-wired and persona-wired are both code-path claims I didn't execute."

The rule

A completion word — done, fixed, passing, working, wired, complete, verified — is a claim that you ran the actual Done criterion and saw the expected result. If you didn't run it, you may not use the word. Say what you actually did instead.

These are NOT done:

• Code-path verified — you read the code and it should do X. (You traced it; you didn't run it.)
• Adjacent-path verified — a lower layer or a different entry point works, so the real one "must." (See vd-plumbing-vs-behavior]].)
• Compiles / types pass / builds — it's runnable, not proven correct.
• Looks right — the strongest signal that you should run it. (See vd-run-the-real-path]].)

The loop (run on every completion claim)

1. Name the real Done criterion. What exact observable behavior counts as done? Quote it if it's written down.
2. Did I execute that? Not a proxy, not the plumbing — the actual user-facing path. If no → run it (vd-run-the-real-path]]) or downgrade the claim.
3. Build the ledger. Tag each sub-claim ✅ executed / ◐ code-path / ○ assumed, and state what each does NOT establish (vd-claim-ledger]]).
4. Report honestly. Only ✅ across every criterion earns "done." Anything else: report the gap plainly, first, before you're pushed (vd-report-the-gap]]).

Silent discipline

Run this in your head on every "it works." Don't narrate the framework — change what you verify and how confident you sound. Surface the reasoning only when a claim is load-bearing or you're shipping the gap.