echolot/docs/findings-registry.md

<!--
SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2026 Echolot contributors
SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0
-->

# Echolot findings registry

Closes open item 1 of `measurement-schema.md` §9.

A **finding code** is the stable, machine-readable half of a result. The prose around it changes
freely; the code is what a dashboard groups by, what a diff between two runs keys on, and what
someone greps a year of archived runs for. That only works if a code means exactly one thing,
forever.

This document is the contract. It is kept in step with
`echolot-app/core-measurement/.../FindingRegistry.kt` by a test that fails when either side has a
code the other does not — a registry that drifts from its documentation is worse than none,
because it looks authoritative.

## Rules

1. **The prefix determines the category**, and the category determines which verdict light the
   finding rolls up into (§7.3). A `nat.*` code appearing under *connectivity* is not a naming
   quibble; it changes which light turns red. Two codes were renamed from `nat.*` to
   `connectivity.*` for exactly this reason.
2. **One code per concept.** Two emitters independently produced `connectivity.downstream_loss`
   and `connectivity.loss_downstream` for the same claim before this registry existed. Anyone
   aggregating either would have silently seen half their data.
3. **Codes are declared, not typed.** Emitters reference a `FindingSpec`, so a typo is a compile
   error and no two call sites can disagree about a finding's category or default severity.
4. **Severity in the registry is the default.** An emitter may escalate for a specific run; it may
   not quietly reclassify the finding in general.
5. **Say what is ruled out**, where that is the useful half. "Loss upstream" is worth far more
   when it also states that the return path is clean, because that halves where to look next.
6. **Renaming a code is a breaking change** once runs are archived at scale. Before 1.0 it is
   cheap; after, it needs an alias and a deprecation window.

## Registry

### connectivity

| code | severity | means | rules out |
|---|---|---|---|
| `connectivity.udp_unreachable` | high | No UDP echo replies came back from the server at all. | — |
| `connectivity.udp_unreachable_upstream` | high | The server received none of the probes, so traffic is dropped on the way out. | The return path: nothing arrived to be replied to. |
| `connectivity.udp_loss` | medium | A large fraction of round-trip probes were lost, direction unknown. | — |
| `connectivity.loss_upstream` | medium | Probes were lost on the way to the server. | The return path: replies came back for everything that arrived. |
| `connectivity.loss_downstream` | medium | Packets were lost on the way back from the server. | The outbound path: the server received what it was answering. |
| `connectivity.downstream_blocked` | high | Server-initiated packets never arrive, although round trips work. | Basic reachability: the path forwards replies, just not unsolicited traffic. |
| `connectivity.downstream_reorder` | low | Downstream packets arrive in a different order than they were sent. | — |
| `connectivity.captive_portal` | medium | A captive portal is intercepting connectivity checks. | — |
| `connectivity.no_internet` | high | Android's own connectivity checks fail on this network. | — |

### mtu

| code | severity | means | rules out |
|---|---|---|---|
| `mtu.reduced_downstream` | low | The downstream path MTU is below the usual 1500 bytes. | — |
| `mtu.downstream_blackhole` | medium | Datagrams above the path MTU are dropped downstream, fragmented or not. | — |
| `mtu.fragments_blocked` | medium | IP fragments do not reach this device even when sent in order. | — |
| `mtu.fragment_reorder_sensitive` | low | Fragments are delivered in order but dropped when reordered or delayed. | Fragmentation itself: in-order fragments arrive fine. |

### nat

| code | severity | means | rules out |
|---|---|---|---|
| `nat.udp_rebinding` | medium | A NAT remapped the UDP source port mid-flow. | — |
| `nat.symmetric` | medium | The NAT assigns a different external port per destination. | — |

### perf

| code | severity | means | rules out |
|---|---|---|---|
| `perf.throughput_no_delivery` | high | No throughput traffic arrived, although the server sent it. | — |
| `perf.throughput_below_offered` | low | Less throughput arrived than the server sent for the whole run. | — |

### dns

| code | severity | means | rules out |
|---|---|---|---|
| `dns.answer_rewritten` | high | A resolver returned an answer that differs from the authoritative record. | — |
| `dns.authoritative_unreachable` | medium | The canary zone's authoritative server could not be reached. | — |

### v6

The prefix is `v6.`, matching the test-type registry (`v6.brokenness`, `v6.happy_eyeballs`, …).
These were `ipv6.*` while declaring `Category.IPV6`; since the prefix map only knows `v6`, they
rolled up under *connectivity* instead — the third occurrence of rule 1 being broken.

| code | severity | means | rules out |
|---|---|---|---|
| `v6.no_icmp_reply` | low | IPv6 is configured but ICMPv6 echo gets no reply. | Nothing on its own: IPv6 may work fine with ICMP filtered. |
| `v6.not_offered` | info | This network does not offer IPv6. | — |

`v6.no_icmp_reply` was `v6.broken` until a phone reported it while loading an IPv6-only site over
TCP perfectly well. The only evidence behind it is ICMPv6 echo, which is widely filtered on
networks where IPv6 works — so the finding now states what was observed and names both
explanations instead of choosing one. It is still worth reporting: filtered ICMPv6 breaks Path MTU
Discovery. Corroborating it with a real IPv6 connection would let the two cases be separated, and
is the proper fix.

`v6.not_offered` is **info and must stay info**. Most networks still do not offer IPv6 and that is
not a fault; reporting it as a warning lights a yellow verdict on a healthy network, which teaches
people to ignore the light — the one thing a diagnostic must never do.

## Adding a finding

1. Add a `FindingSpec` to `FindingRegistry`, and to its `all` list.
2. Add the row here, under the section its prefix names.
3. Emit it with `finding(FindingRegistry.YOUR_CODE, …)`.

The registry test checks 1 and 2 agree, that every prefix maps to the category it claims, and that
no two entries share a code.