Abstract
Machine-verifiable workflows produce governance records linking a task contract, model attempt, verifier decision, accepted output, and target origin. We test whether verifier-admitted outputs can supervise a bounded model by consolidating occasional or expensive capability into reliable one-shot execution. On fresh, structure-disjoint PlanBench replanning cases, Qwen3-14B thinking produced 24 plans admitted by independently authored VAL. They trained the same checkpoint for non-thinking execution, without oracle targets or a stronger teacher. VAL acceptance rose from 1/80 to 57/80. A prospective replication held targets, model revision, recipe, and evaluation corpus fixed across eight LoRA seeds and three inference realizations per seed. Every seed produced a clear lift: adapters reached 45/80 to 70/80 against 1/80 for every matched base report; the exact seed-level sign-flip test gave p=0.0078125. Target-selection performance was less stable. An initial matched seed gave 102/160 accepted plans after VAL selection versus 69/160 after blinded model self-selection. Across eight prospective seeds, the contrast was seed-dependent, included one clear reverse seed, and did not replicate (p=0.3672). VAL also had a positive descriptive aggregate over schema-only selection but failed its preregistered seed-level reliability gate (p=0.0703). The verifier remains the admission authority; no reliable downstream capability advantage of semantic selection is established. A complementary Phi arm supports stronger-teacher distillation. Earlier synthetic studies bound teachability, cumulative learning, transfer, and stopping. The evidence supports robust consolidation of one fixed, machine-checkable capability, not arbitrary planning, enterprise validity, or unrestricted self-improvement.