Documented Reversibility

Does the contract say what can be UNDONE, how, and within what window. roadmap#68 proposed this over a consequence multiplier on dry-run and idempotency, and preferred it for a reason that holds up: a multiplier needs whole markets classified by hazard, which is the hard part, while this measures something no dimension covers and needs no such classification. It is what an agent actually needs BEFORE it acts. Dry-run lets it rehearse and idempotency stops it double-firing; neither tells it whether the action it is about to take can be taken back. GRADED. `documented` = a reversal operation exists in the contract (cancel, refund, void, reverse, undo, rollback, restore). `verified` = that AND a stated window (grace_period, cancellation_window, "within 30 days"). A path says the capability exists; the window is what makes it plannable. A window with NO reversal operation behind it earns nothing -- that is a policy sentence, not a capability. MEASURED 2026-08-18 across 7,579 providers holding a contract: 1,353 (17.8%) expose a reversal operation, 343 (4.5%) document a window, 171 (2.3%) do both. It discriminates without being near-empty, which is what a new dimension has to clear. GATED ON WRITE SURFACE like the other hazard dimensions: a read-only API has nothing to reverse, and a zero there would measure the absence of a hazard rather than the absence of work.