Review fidelity against the comp itself, not the builder's summary of it

A codex run turned an approved comp into a related second art direction
and the finish reviewer passed it: the review anchored on the direction
contract, a lossy abstraction the builder wrote, and every element that
abstraction dropped passed silently. Four changes close that chain. The
reviewer inventories the comp's salient elements before reading the
contract and classifies each one (match, adaptation, missing,
contradicted, added without approval), with adaptations citing the
answer, brief, accessibility need, or product truth that forced them,
and fidelity failures outranking craft in material_fixes. The visualize
inventory gate records compositional commitments alongside asset media,
since the 150-word contract cannot carry them. The north-star allowance
now says what it permits: translation, never recomposition. And the
finish sequence recaptures the same viewports once after the fix batch,
so what the documenter records is what actually shipped.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

skill/reference/visualize.md

@@ -25,11 +25,11 @@ After approval, summarize the composition and the parts of the comp that must no
 
 ## Inventory implementation fidelity
 
-Before building, inventory the approved comp's major visible ingredients in writing (a short table in the surface brief or working notes; the finish reviewer audits shipped assets against it) and choose an implementation medium for each: semantic HTML/CSS/SVG, existing project asset, generated raster, sourced raster, icon library, canvas/WebGL, or accepted omission. Textures, portraits, and scenes are raster-by-default; a CSS gradient is not a texture medium. Every `produce` entry is produced before the build ships, through the asset producer or in the current thread; an inventory with unproduced entries is an unfinished build, and this gate is where imagery-free pages come from when it is skipped.
+Before building, inventory the approved comp's major visible ingredients in writing (a short table in the surface brief or working notes; the finish reviewer audits shipped assets against it) and choose an implementation medium for each: semantic HTML/CSS/SVG, existing project asset, generated raster, sourced raster, icon library, canvas/WebGL, or accepted omission. The same written inventory names the comp's compositional commitments: navigation items and icons, headline levels and their scale relationship, signature geometry such as seams, masks, and overlaps, and each section's arrangement and density. An element never written down is the element the build silently drops, and the direction contract's 150 words cannot carry this list, so this inventory is where it lives. Textures, portraits, and scenes are raster-by-default; a CSS gradient is not a texture medium. Every `produce` entry is produced before the build ships, through the asset producer or in the current thread; an inventory with unproduced entries is an unfinished build, and this gate is where imagery-free pages come from when it is skipped.
 
 Pay special attention to the dominant composition, signature use, image-native content, second-fold system, and any interaction the still image only implies. If the concept depends on a photograph, architectural scene, product object, portrait, or other raster-native material, do not silently replace it with generic CSS scenery.
 
-Treat the comp as a north star, not something to trace. Do not rasterize core UI text or controls. Do not substitute a different visual driver after approval without asking.
+Treat the comp as a north star, not something to trace, and know what that allows: translation into semantic, responsive, accessible code, never recomposition. Keeping the palette and mood while redrawing the topology is a second art direction, not an adaptation. Do not rasterize core UI text or controls. Do not substitute a different visual driver after approval without asking.
 
 ## Produce only the assets the build needs