fix(contract-dd): remove a stranded paragraph that revoked an active scoring row, and correct the self-check totals

Both defects came from review feedback and both are mine — incomplete patches
whose verification checked the strings I knew I had changed instead of checking
the invariants.

**A paragraph told the implementer not to apply a deduction the table applies.**
When `vol_ratio < 0.20` was promoted to a scored row, the replacement only
covered the first paragraph of the old reported-not-scored argument. The second
paragraph survived and still read "compute `vol_ratio` … and **do not deduct on
it**", plus "**That test has not been run**" — describing the rate-limit
interruption that the completed three-batch lift test had already superseded four
commits earlier. An implementer copying the scoring table would have shipped the
−18; one reading the prose would have skipped it. Deleted, and the row is now
stated as ACTIVE at that spot.

Acting on the reviewer's wider point rather than just the instance: a note under
the Step 5 table now says every row in every scoring table is active and this
skill has no candidate, disabled or "pending" rules anywhere — a rule that failed
measurement was deleted outright rather than parked, which is what happened to
`sell_volume_24h / buy_volume_24h` and to `vol_ratio`'s own 0.20–0.40 tier. The
tables are safe to implement on their own.

**The coverage self-check named the wrong totals.** It said "does not equal 22 or
24" while the inventory it checks is 23 on `sol` and 25 on the EVM chains — the
numbers were updated in the "Inventory total" sentence when the price section
gained `vol_ratio` and missed four lines below. Since executed + skipped +
held-out always sums to the inventory total by construction, the check would have
mis-fired on every correct run, which is the worst possible failure for a line
whose only job is to catch a miscount. Corrected, and the identity is now spelled
out in both directions.

To stop repeating the class of mistake, verification is now an invariant sweep
rather than a string grep: no prose may revoke a row the tables mark active
(excluding availability rules, which legitimately say "do not deduct" on struct
defaults), every inventory-total statement must say 23/25, the Step 5 table row
count must equal the inventory's Price count, all caps must be 59 or 79, every
Step reference must resolve, and the file-hygiene checks. All fourteen pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

skills/gmgn-contract-dd/SKILL.md

@@ -279,6 +279,8 @@ Needs at least 8 candles. Tiers are mutually exclusive per measurement, worst ma
 | `float(info.price.price) / float(info.price.price_24h)` | < 0.5, halved in 24h | −10 |
 | `vol_ratio = mean(V[-20:]) / mean(V[-40:-20])` | **< 0.20 only** — needs `len(W) >= 40` and `mean(V[-40:-20]) > 0` | −18 |
 
+**Every row in the table above is active and deducts. This skill has no candidate, disabled or "pending" scoring rows anywhere** — a rule that did not survive measurement was deleted outright rather than parked, which is what happened to `sell_volume_24h / buy_volume_24h` and to `vol_ratio`'s own `0.20–0.40` tier. So the tables are safe to implement on their own; the prose under them explains *why* a threshold is where it is and never revokes a row.
+
 **Guards. A degenerate candle must never manufacture a deduction out of a division.** Skip the measurement and mark it unavailable — never deduct — when its denominator is zero or its input is missing: `max(H) == 0` drops the drawdown row; a candle with `O[i] == 0` is excluded from the worst-candle scan rather than scoring as −100%; `float(info.price.price_24h) == 0` drops the `price_24h` row; `len(W) < 40` or `mean(V[-40:-20]) == 0` drops the `vol_ratio` row. A skipped row here is an ordinary unavailable check and touches only coverage.
 
 **The volume row ships with one tier, and the second tier was measured out of existence.** An earlier draft read "recent volume vs earlier volume fell below 20% / below 40% → −18 / −8" with no window definition, so it was never reproducibly executable. Defining it as `vol_ratio` above made it executable for the first time, and it was then put through the same test the `sell_volume_24h / buy_volume_24h` row got: fire rate on tokens labelled `rug_ratio > 0` against tokens labelled `rug_ratio = 0`.
@@ -297,7 +299,7 @@ Note the batch-to-batch instability that the tier split resolves: taken as one r
 
 **Do not add a shallower tier back without repeating this measurement.** The row still needs 40 candles, which structurally excludes tokens under ten hours old; that is a real limit on what it can see, and the `len(kline.list)` deduction in Step 3 is what covers those tokens instead.
 
-So compute `vol_ratio`, report it in the findings with its value, and **do not deduct on it.** Before it may score, run the test the sell/buy row got: fire rate on `market trenches` rows with `rug_ratio > 0` against rows with `rug_ratio = 0`, same volume floor, one snapshot. It scores only if the lift is meaningfully above 1.0x. **That test has not been run** — the attempt on 2026-08-28 was cut short by a `RATE_LIMIT_BANNED` response, so no risky-token fire rate exists yet. Until it does, the 2-of-5 bluechip reading is the only evidence about this row and it points the wrong way, which is why the row is reported rather than scored.
+**So `vol_ratio < 0.20` is ACTIVE and deducts −18, exactly as the scoring table above says.** An earlier draft of this file held the row back as reported-not-scored while its lift test was unfinished; the test is finished, it is the table immediately above, and that draft wording is gone. Compute the value, apply the −18 when it is under 0.20, and also report the value itself in the findings so a reader can see how close it came. There is no shallower tier: `0.20–0.40` is deleted, not deactivated.
 
 **`info.price` is an object, not a number, and every value inside it is a string.** Measured on 2026-08-28: `info.price` is a dict holding `price`, `price_1m/5m/1h/6h/24h`, `buys_24h`, `sells_24h`, `volume_24h`, `buy_volume_24h`, `sell_volume_24h` and `swaps_24h`. **None of those names exist at the top level of `info`** — `info['price_24h']` is a missing key and `info['price']` is a dict, so any threshold written without the `info.price.` prefix is arithmetic on the wrong object. Convert with `float()` before comparing: `price_24h` arrives as the string `'1.72046817'`.
 
@@ -398,7 +400,7 @@ Then, in this order:
 
 One group is **held out of both sides** when it applies: the nine `stat` checks (eight in Holders, `creator_created_count` in Contract) when Step 1B finds the block unpopulated. Held-out checks still appear in the unavailable list, and holding them out additionally requires the disclosure line Step 4 names. Everything else that could not be read is **skipped** — it stays in the denominator.
 
-If your executed + skipped + held-out does not equal 22 or 24, you have invented or dropped a check; recount before reporting a confidence label.
+If your executed + skipped + held-out does not equal **23 on `sol` or 25 on the EVM chains**, you have invented or dropped a check; recount before reporting a confidence label. The identity holds in both directions: with `stat` populated the nine `stat` checks are executed or skipped and held-out is 0, and with `stat` unpopulated they move to held-out — either way the three numbers still sum to the same total, which is the whole point of holding them out rather than dropping them.
 
 | Coverage | Confidence | What it does to the conclusion |
 |----------|-----------|-------------------------------|