Requiring an evidence outcome from the current question exempted the case enforcement
exists for: a follow-up about evidence already cited needs no new search, since that
evidence is still on the wire — in a capsule when a compactor is registered, in full
when not. The condition is now that the conversation has something to declare, either
an outcome in this question or evidence it has already cited, which is independent of
whether anything compacts. A conversation that has neither is still left alone.
Citing again cannot narrow a question at any epoch. Declarations merged only within one
epoch, so an empty second thought a request later replaced the refs with nothing and
reported a grounded question ungrounded. They merge while no evidence outcome has
followed the standing declaration, and only genuinely newer evidence starts one afresh.
Whether a question has already been asked to declare is read from the message history
rather than remembered on the run instance, which a resumption's `for_run` discarded —
the same question was asked twice. Reading the history also makes the right call when a
redirect was enqueued but the run ended before it reached the model: nothing is in the
history, so it is asked again. Violations are recorded once per question for the same
reason.
ae2755e88f