workflow-fix: verify_plan cross-section param-consistency check

Overview / Motivation

Auto-filed by the workflow-fix-on-bug protocol from a workflow-fix candidate raised on task #1024 (emitting agents: codex-critic methodology twin, ratified by the Claude methodology critic, statistics critic, and consistency-checker — all four independently re-flagged the same stale restatement).

Goal

Add a cross-section internal-consistency check to scripts/verify_plan.py flagging contradictory key=value parameter restatements across plan sections (the stale-post-correction-restatement class).

Workflow gap

• Bug observed: plan v2 for #1024 carried temperature=0.7 in a §11 Decision-Rationale What: line contradicting the fact-check-corrected §4 D-E text ("temperature OMITTED / API default 1.0"); the mechanical pre-pass (0 FAIL/0 WARN) could not see it, and three critics + the consistency-checker each burned tokens independently re-flagging it.
• Why it is a workflow gap: a fact-check/critique correction applied to one plan section routinely leaves stale restatements of the same parameter in other sections (§11 What-lines, §10 repro commands); an implementer grounding from the wrong section threads the wrong value. Nothing mechanical catches cross-section contradictions today.
• Confidence (emitter): medium

Proposed change (candidate diff sketch — refine in planning)

• In scripts/verify_plan.py, add check c21_cross_section_param_consistency:
• • extract \b(temperature|max_tokens|lr|epochs|seed|rank|alpha|batch(_size)?)\s*[=:]\s*<value> tokens per section
• • for any parameter appearing with >1 DISTINCT value across sections, WARN naming both lines,

• unless one occurrence sits in a "declared but never threaded"/"historical"/"was/old" clause
  

• • WARN not FAIL (legit multi-value cases exist: sweeps, per-phase values)

Scope / surfaces

• Primary target: scripts/verify_plan.py
• Grep the workflow surface for the pattern before editing (grep -rln 'verify_plan' .claude/ CLAUDE.md scripts/) and update every doc naming the check list; list them in the plan.

Constraints / invariants

• Workflow-surface only — never experiment code, configs/, or tasks/.
• scripts/workflow_lint.py --check-asks passes; ruff on touched files passes; tests for the new check added to tests/test_verify_plan.py.
• This session runs under EPM_WORKFLOW_FIX_SESSION=1 and carries a workflow_fix_target: Provenance line — it MUST NOT auto-route any of its own subagents' workflow-fix candidates (recursion guard).

Provenance

• workflow_fix_target: scripts/verify_plan.py
• fingerprint: 62da7cf04f7c

Surfaced prose (codex-critic methodology twin, #1024 round 1): "This should recur in a workflow-surface verifier for stale post-fact-check restatements. ... check the plan text after fact-check corrections for any diagnosis/probe instruction matching temperature=0.7 or temperature: 0.7 outside a 'declared but never threaded' historical clause, and fail if found."