docs: publish parser uncertainty case study

README.md

@@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ LogLens is an MVP / early release. The repository is stable enough for public re
 
 Reviewing the project quickly? Start with [`docs/reviewer-path.md`](./docs/reviewer-path.md), [`docs/reviewer-brief.md`](./docs/reviewer-brief.md), and the [`v0.5 Evidence Explainability release note`](./docs/release-v0.5.0.md). The [`quality gates map`](./docs/quality-gates.md) links claims to tests and fixtures. For detection reasoning, follow the [`one-page incident-style case`](./docs/incident-style-case.md), then use the full [`Linux auth brute-force case study`](./docs/case-study-linux-auth-bruteforce.md), [`rule catalog`](./docs/rule-catalog.md), and [`false-positive taxonomy`](./docs/false-positive-taxonomy.md) for depth. For local scale expectations, see the [`performance envelope`](./docs/performance-envelope.md).
 
+For a shorter external review entry point focused on uncertainty handling, read
+[How LogLens Treats Parser Uncertainty as Evidence](./docs/case-study-parser-uncertainty-as-evidence.md).
+
 ## Why This Project Exists
 
 Many small security tools can detect a handful of known log patterns. Fewer tools make their parsing limits visible.

docs/case-study-parser-uncertainty-as-evidence.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+# How LogLens Treats Parser Uncertainty as Evidence
+
+A log analysis tool can appear more certain than it is when unsupported input
+quietly disappears. LogLens takes the opposite approach: parser uncertainty is
+part of the review artifact.
+
+The practical review question is simple: when a report contains no finding,
+did the relevant activity fail to meet a rule, or did the parser fail to
+understand the source line? The report should preserve enough evidence to tell
+those cases apart.
+
+## Three visible line outcomes
+
+The [parser contract](parser-contract.md) gives every input line one of three
+outcomes:
+
+1. A recognized authentication line becomes a typed event.
+2. A blank line is counted in `skipped_blank_lines`.
+3. A malformed or unsupported line becomes a parser warning with a line
+   number, failure category, and unknown-pattern bucket.
+
+Unsupported lines do not become detector input. They remain visible as
+coverage telemetry. This keeps a parser gap from being mistaken for negative
+security evidence.
+
+The categories are deliberately coarser than the pattern buckets. For example,
+an unsupported `sshd` pre-authentication close and an unsupported negotiation
+failure can both belong to `known_program_unknown_message` while retaining
+different buckets. The category supports summary review; the bucket preserves
+the narrower engineering question.
+
+## A noisy corpus is useful evidence
+
+The checked-in
+[`mixed_auth_corpus.log`](../assets/mixed_auth_corpus.log) is a sanitized,
+150-line syslog-style fixture. Its paired
+[`mixed_auth_parser_coverage.json`](../assets/mixed_auth_parser_coverage.json)
+records recognized events, warnings, blank lines, failure categories, pattern
+buckets, and source-line references.
+
+The corpus is intentionally noisy. A lower parse-success rate is not hidden or
+reframed as a quality claim. What matters is that the unsupported portion has a
+stable, inspectable shape. The locked expectations are documented in
+[parser coverage notes](parser-coverage-notes.md) and exercised by parser and
+report-contract tests.
+
+## Parsing and detection remain separate
+
+A parsed event is not automatically a detection signal. LogLens keeps that
+boundary explicit through its signal configuration. Supported success and
+audit events can remain reportable context without contributing to a
+brute-force finding. Unsupported lines never cross that boundary.
+
+This separation lets a reviewer ask two different questions:
+
+- Did the parser classify this line as documented?
+- Did the configured rule use that event as evidence?
+
+The [parser conformance matrix](parser-conformance-matrix.md) and
+[rule catalog](rule-catalog.md) provide the corresponding review surfaces.
+
+## Reproduce the contract
+
+From the repository root:
+
+```bash
+cmake -S . -B build
+cmake --build build
+ctest --test-dir build --output-on-failure
+```
+
+For a shorter artifact-first route, use the
+[reviewer path](reviewer-path.md). A useful external review can stay narrow:
+check one supported line, one unsupported line, or one report warning against
+the documented outcome.
+
+## What this does not prove
+
+Visible uncertainty is not complete parser coverage. LogLens does not claim to
+support every Linux distribution, authentication module, or message variant.
+It also does not turn a rule match into a compromise verdict, attribution, or
+blocking recommendation. The case study shows how uncertainty is preserved for
+review, not how uncertainty is eliminated.