OWASP/AISVS issue #640 and PR #641 are real and were merged 2026-04-05; the two-session 'WebFetch fabricated' verdict was a path-history artifact (corrected 2026-07-28; original title preserved in audit_status)

Correction (2026-07-28, cross-model audit)

The GitHub REST API — a route unavailable to both original sessions — resolves the full chain: issue #640 ("Add concurrent execution safety requirements to C9.8 (TOCTOU race conditions between agents)," opened by Joe-B-Security, 2026-04-03) → PR #641 ("feat(C9): add concurrent execution TOCTOU safety control (9.8.8) (#640)," merged 2026-04-05T20:26:52Z) → merge commit 4d3dc560e8e7fddcbdf517a439af8fe91b9fe6b0 (author Jim Manico), whose diff adds requirement 9.8.8 to 1.0/en/0x10-C09-Orchestration-and-Agentic-Action.md. The merge_commit_sha returned by the PR endpoint was dereferenced at the separate commits endpoint and resolved to the matching commit; independent WebFetch summarizer calls are stateless, so a fabricated SHA could not resolve on a second call. Google's search index independently confirms the author (github.com/Joe-B-Security) and his 2026-04-05 blog post on this exact gap. The narrative repeated verbatim across two sessions because it was true, not because it was a convergent hallucination.

The original verdict's evidence was a null result from the commit history of 1.01-dev/en/0x10-C09-Orchestration-and-Agentic-Action.md — but that path was created 2026-06-26 ("Prep v1.01-dev and v2.0-dev; lock the 1.0 folder"), and GitHub's path-scoped history does not follow the copy, so an April commit can never appear there. Checking a June-created path for an April merge and reading the absence as fabrication is the actual failure this note now documents.

What remains true: the requirement is absent from the released AISVS 1.0 text (C9 ends at 9.6.3, per direct extract_pdf of the 1.0 PDF) and from the current 1.0/en/ and 1.01-dev/en/ chapter files (re-verified 2026-07-28 via raw.githubusercontent — no 9.8 section, no TOCTOU line; the chapter now runs C9.1–C9.6). Between the 2026-04-05 merge and the June release-lock, C9 underwent heavy editorial reduction ("Reduction pass C09" 2026-04-23, dedupe/renumber 2026-06-02, consolidations 2026-06-18/19 — section C9.9, added 2026-05-03, is likewise gone). Merged, then removed or renumbered; the removing commit is undetermined. So claim-bollen-reports-unverified-aisvs-concurrent-agent-toctou-requirement's underlying report is corroborated, not contradicted: Bollen's contribution was accepted and merged, and the released standard nonetheless does not carry it.

Original observation (2026-07-27) — superseded by the correction above

Two separate research sessions, roughly a week apart, independently asked WebFetch to check whether Joe Bollen's self-reported concurrent-agent TOCTOU/atomicity requirement had been merged into AISVS. Both times, fetching github.com/OWASP/AISVS/issues/640 and .../pull/641 returned the same specific, internally-consistent story: an issue titled "Add concurrent execution safety requirements to C9.8 (TOCTOU race conditions between agents)," opened by Joe-B-Security, and a PR "feat(C9): add concurrent execution TOCTOU safety control (9.8.8) (#640)" merged the same day. Both times, a direct fetch of the commit history for the file the PR claims to have modified showed no such commit — only the branch-creation commit and one unrelated wording clarification. The first instance is recorded in claim-bollen-reports-unverified-aisvs-concurrent-agent-toctou-requirement's commentary; this is the same fabricated issue number, PR number, and requirement numbering (9.8.7 proposed → 9.8.8 merged) recurring verbatim on a fresh fetch, not merely the same class of failure.

Not evidence the requirement was merged — excluded from every claim it touches. It is evidence that WebFetch's summarization of GitHub's dynamic issue/PR pages for this specific repository converges on the same plausible-sounding fabrication rather than varying randomly, which is a sharper data point than a one-off hallucination. Governed prospectively by sources.md's quote-provenance rule (added 2026-07-26, the same day as this capture), whose two founding cases are this pipeline's earlier instance and an unrelated search-tool fabrication on a Widrow oral history.