test(e2e): extend catch-up equivalence corpus to wrapper + reverse/primary classes (#202)

[tayy-i]

Closes #202 (follow-up from the PR #198 review). The catch-up-vs-live output-equivalence scenario (#193/#208) certified the #157 divergence containment only on an ENSv1-finalized-single-name corpus. This extends it to the highest-risk classes.

Added

A wrapper + reverse/primary fixture on the same forced-catch-up vs live-intake comparison: register catchupeqwrapped.eth, wrap_eth_2ld, set_wrapper_fuses (fuse bits 1|4), plus a reverse record + primary-name claim. Asserts Full route-snapshot and normalized-event equality via the existing harness/perturb.rs machinery, with the #208 receipt-reconstructed preimage assertion preserved. The original single-name scenario is retained.

Result

No real catch-up-vs-live divergence surfaced — Full equality holds unchanged on the wrapper + reverse corpus; no containment exception was added. This strengthens the #157 guarantee: the two-phase automatic replay produces byte-identical catch-up output even for wrapper/reverse-name handling, not just the single-name slice.

Test-only (catchup_equivalence.rs, perturb.rs subjects, README); e2e suite green.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01C9RTnbCyhqEUSPc7xCK76p

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9fee5966e9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Cite the ENSv1 behavior claims

This new docs entry describes ENSv1-specific behavior—wrapping, burning owner-controlled fuses, unwrapping back to registrar authority, and reverse/primary-name claiming—but it does not include pinned .refs citations. The repo rule requires every ENSv1 behavior claim in docs to cite the upstream source, so this entry would be rejected and leaves reviewers unable to audit the scenario description against the pinned contracts.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L42-L42

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.