Model maintains a verdict while mandated evidence is still missing

What happened
When challenged, the model defended its existing verdict instead of acknowledging that the checklist evidence behind it was incomplete.

Expected
A verdict without its required evidence is withdrawn, not defended.

Context: a project CLAUDE.md plus the user's auto-memory define a mandatory, ordered code-review checklist (read every touched file, the whole diff, linked issue and thread; cite the normative source per component; grep callers; check duplication, new structure and scope; then a single short verdict). The model had the checklist loaded in context and had been reminded of it repeatedly in the same session. Reviewing a multi-thousand-line pull request.

Reported by the user; no transcript or private content included.