This is a follow-up to part four, not a new part. Part four measured my stated routing policy against what actually ran: 425 decisions, 96 deviations, $1,248.13, none of them on the main thread.
Then a reader asked what happens when no rule applies. I went to measure it, and the answer was that my checker had been inventing verdicts. In both directions.
The question
Brian Jin, in the comments:
Have you considered making "no applicable rule" a first-class unresolved state rather than allowing it to fall through to a default? That seems useful for separating real compliance from policy coverage gaps.
