Property-flow proof path

Show the schema gap before route context gets promoted.

This concept page explains why property-flow review needs route-flow schema compatibility checks. When route-flow evidence exists but its schema is incompatible, reviewers should see a rule-backed stop condition instead of implied endpoint context.

Public claim level: concept. No public conclusion without evidence. This page explains a checked-in static evidence boundary; it is not a runtime trace, production execution claim, impact proof, UI behavior proof, complete coverage claim, release approval, or AI analysis.

Why it matters

Route-flow context is useful only when the schema contract is readable.

Property-flow questionWhich static property trail can be shown for a selected field, control, binding, model, DTO, symbol, or fact?

Route-flow contributionRoute-flow rows may add endpoint context only when property-flow can read the route key contract and tie that context to the selected property trail.

Compatibility stopUnsupportedRouteFlowSchema records that a route-flow signal exists, but it does not expose a compatible normalized route key column for property-flow.

Review valueThe explicit gap keeps the reviewer from mistaking adjacent endpoint evidence for selected property-flow context.

Schema statuses

Different route-flow states lead to different review language.

RouteFlowUnavailable

The route-flow edge object is absent from the combined index. Property-flow reports a schema availability gap and does not promote route-flow-specific downstream traversal.

Review wording: route-flow-specific context is unavailable for this property-flow review.

Empty route-flow rows

The route-flow schema signal is readable, but it has no rows. Property-flow keeps the stop explicit instead of inventing endpoint context from nearby evidence.

Review wording: the route-flow table is readable but contributes no selected route rows.

UnsupportedRouteFlowSchema

Route-flow evidence exists, but the schema does not expose a compatible normalized route key contract such as normalized_path_key, route_key, or path_key.

Review wording: the trail stopped for a schema-contract reason, not because route-flow evidence was proved absent.

Available schema

Property-flow can read the route key contract and may evaluate route-flow-specific context, but route context still needs a rule-backed property-specific bridge before it is attached.

Review wording: readable route-flow schema is a prerequisite, not runtime or impact proof.

Gap fields

The unsupported schema row carries evidence, not vibes.

Current checked-in source behavior emits UnsupportedRouteFlowSchema as a property-flow.schema.v1 gap with Tier4Unknown and UnknownAnalysisGap. The report keeps supporting IDs and source context attached so a reviewer can see why the trail stopped.

ruleIdproperty-flow.schema.v1; rule catalog limitations explain that schema gaps describe evidence availability only.

evidenceTierTier4Unknown; the gap is an analysis boundary, not stronger proof.

classificationUnknownAnalysisGap; the schema contract cannot support a stronger property-flow route-context conclusion.

supporting IDsSelected fact IDs and source IDs stay with the gap when available, so the row remains auditable without raw source snippets.

commit evidenceCommit SHA evidence travels with the supporting sources when available.

observed schema contextThe gap message records observed route-flow column names in public-safe form, showing which contract was missing.

source contextFile path and line span from the selected anchor may be attached without publishing raw source text.

extractor versionsProperty-flow extractor identity and version stay attached to report rows for reproducible review.

limitationsThe limitation says route-flow absence limits downstream route-specific conclusions while existing combined path evidence may still be shown.

Review language

Use the gap to stop cleanly and hand off the right owner follow-up question.

Safe summaryProperty-flow found a route-flow schema signal, but the route key contract was unsupported, so route-flow-specific endpoint context was not promoted for this property trail.

Safe next questionAsk the schema or reporting owner whether the route-flow edge shape should expose a normalized route key column that property-flow can consume.

Safe preservationKeep existing combined path evidence visible when available, with its own rule IDs, evidence tiers, supporting IDs, commit evidence, and limitations.

Do not concludeDo not say route-flow evidence is absent, runtime behavior is known, UI behavior is proved, a change is impacted, coverage is complete, or a release is safe.

Boundaries

The schema gap is not a runtime or impact finding.

UnsupportedRouteFlowSchema does not prove route-flow evidence is absent.
It does not prove runtime request execution, runtime binding, production traffic, endpoint performance, UI behavior, outage cause, business impact, release safety, operational safety, release approval, or complete coverage.
It is not AI impact analysis, LLM analysis, embeddings, vector databases, prompt classification, autonomous approval, or a replacement for tests, code review, source review, runtime observability, service-owner judgment, or human review.
Public copy must not publish raw source snippets, raw SQL, config values, secrets, local paths, raw remotes, generated scan directories, raw facts, raw SQLite content, analyzer logs, raw command output, hidden validation details, private sample names, private route values, or credential-like values.

Checked-in evidence

Public wording stays tied to source evidence.

Reporter behaviorPropertyFlowReport.cs distinguishes unavailable, empty, unsupported, and available route-flow schema signals before adding route-flow context.

Focused testsPropertyFlowTests.cs checks the unsupported schema signal, gap kind, rule ID, classification, message context, supporting facts, commit evidence, file path, line span, and no fallback unavailable gap.

Rule catalogproperty-flow.schema.v1 documents the unsupported route-flow schema gap and its limitation that unsupported schema is not route-flow absence proof.

Acceptance notesProperty-flow report acceptance criteria require schema gaps to stay explicit while preserving available combined path evidence.

Continue review

Carry the gap to the adjacent proof surfaces.

Proof path index Route-flow evidence story Evidence gap register Evidence model Limitations Static vs runtime Review claim checklist