Demo mode. These are captured runs of the real scenarios against a deliberately broken store and a fixed one. All data is synthetic.
Several defects at onceFAIL
Records keyed by user id only, a soft delete that search ignores, and updates implemented as inserts.
- Run ID
- ec9547ea-6e0f-40ef-84c4-a398f2d9d659
- Completed
- 22 Oct 2026, 06:35 UTC
- Duration
- 265 ms
- Environment
- sandbox
- Adapter
- in_memory · in_memory 1.0 · faults=ignore_tenant_scope,soft_delete_visible,stale_update
- Source
- demo/several-defects
- CLI
- memtru 0.1.0 · schema 1.0
- Config
- sha256:d021b22b162f8d0f
4
Failed
0
Errors
0
Inconclusive
2
Passed
1
Skipped
2 of 6 executed scenarios passed; 1 skipped and not counted. A pass means the listed assertions held for this adapter and configuration, not that the system is secure.
Findings
- criticalCross-tenant memory returned to another tenantA principal in another tenant retrieved tenant A's memory.MT-TEN-00222 Oct 2026, 06:35 UTC
- highDeleted memory still retrievable after deleteA deleted record was still retrievable after the consistency window.MT-DEL-00322 Oct 2026, 06:35 UTC
- mediumSuperseded preference still returned as currentThe superseded value is still returned as an active fact.MT-STALE-00422 Oct 2026, 06:35 UTC
- mediumUpdate not applied to the intended recordThe intended record did not reflect the update.MT-INT-00622 Oct 2026, 06:35 UTC