Define correction exit statuses

[BenWestgate]

Fixes #39.

correct now has a stable, documented status contract:

• 0: input is already valid
• 1: a correction suggestion was emitted
• 2: command or input syntax is invalid
• 3: no usable suggestion was emitted

Status 3 covers no result, incomplete searches with no usable suggestion, ambiguous searches, refused disclosure, and a missing dependency needed to present a suggestion. Worksheet-residue repairs return 1 when they emit repair instructions. Other commands retain their existing status behavior.

This PR is stacked on #42 because its tests include the mixed-case correction path. It is one human-authored focused commit on #42 head 7c7ba26; current #45 head is 794f898. All inline review threads are resolved, including the immutable-HRP syntax check, the generalized BIP93 1–83 HRP contract, and the incomplete-search documentation qualification.

Validation:

• correction/status/disclosure subset: 104 passed normally and 104 under python -O;
• frozen differential correction verifier: all 57 cases passed;
• Ruff check: clean for the touched Python files;
• git diff --check: clean;
• exact-head GitHub Python-package run 433: success.

Human review order is #42 first, then #45.

The HRP check follows the generalized BIP93 draft (BenWestgate/bips PR #2 @ 01374bf): BIP93 uses the BIP173 HRP grammar, including the 1–83 character bound; the larger limit is for the expanded checksum codeword, not the HRP.

Disclosure: AI tools were used while implementing and checking review follow-ups, per docs/developer/AI_POLICY.md.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9178bf4cde

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[BenWestgate]

Thanks for suggesting this one @FractalEncrypt.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[BenWestgate]

AI-generated review (Claude), posted at the maintainer's request.

Concept ACK. Code looks right; not ACKing 5a826bd until the merge commits are gone.

• I checked correct on the head: already valid → 0, garbage prefix/empty → 2, uncorrectable/non-ASCII → 3, EOF at the YES gate → CorrectionDeclined → 3. That matches the docs.
• The branch has two merges of #42 (60cb96e, 5a826bd). Rebase to 9178bf4 + 06e4a05 per CONTRIBUTING.

[BenWestgate]

Release-gate recheck: the prior Concept ACK still has one mechanical blocker. Current head remains 5a826bd with the two #42 refresh merges (60cb96e, 5a826bd) in a 4-commit stack. Rebase to a linear #42 head + the substantive status commits (9178bf4 and its follow-up) before human review/merge, per CONTRIBUTING. The exit-status behavior itself remains accepted.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[BenWestgate]

Release-gate follow-up: the earlier branch-history blocker is resolved. Current head eb7cfdd is a single linear commit directly on #42 head 2d925d6; the refresh merge commits are gone, the only review thread is resolved, and fresh Python package run 36291117100 completed successfully. The exit-status behavior remains the previously Concept-ACKed design, so #45 is ready for human review after #42.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 87f0ff8190

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f8de15a739

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[BenWestgate]

AI-generated review, posted at the maintainer's request.

ACK 3d5e60d code. Before merge, squash/rewrite the Codex-authored follow-up under the responsible human author per the AI policy.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ee752abfde

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[BenWestgate]

Release-gate ACK 794f898.

Current head is the one human-authored focused commit on #42. The resolved review findings are present in the final tree: standalone correct uses distinct 0/1/2/3 statuses, malformed immutable HRPs are usage errors under the 1–83 BIP93/BIP173 contract, disclosure refusal/no-result paths use status 3, and emitted incomplete best-effort suggestions remain status 1. All inline threads are resolved and exact-head Python-package run 433 is green.

No remaining code blocker from this review. Review #42 first, then #45.

[BenWestgate]

Agent release-gate review at current head 794f898: reviewed the single current commit. The status contract is internally consistent (0 valid, 1 suggestion emitted, 2 usage/input syntax, 3 no usable suggestion), residue repair correctly returns 1 when it emits instructions, malformed immutable HRPs remain usage errors, and non-correct commands retain status 1 for command/Core failures. Exact-head Python-package run 36646776371 succeeded. No remaining code-review blocker found; review #42 first, then this PR.

[BenWestgate]

crACK