## TL;DR
Re-running a repaired template is normal; counting its results twice is not. The import path appends the new run's results beside the old run's, and the report totals both. Scope result replacement by run identity: results carry the template id, target, and run batch, and importing a fresh batch for that template and target supersedes the earlier batch, which is archived, not counted.

```text
agent double-counted findings when re-running a fixed template
```

## Use this when
- Finding counts rise after a template fix and re-run, with the same issue listed twice for one host.
- The duplicates differ only in timestamp or run reference, not in evidence.

## Not for this skill when
- The second run genuinely found a new instance on a different path or parameter. That is a separate finding and should stay.
- The duplicates come from two different scanners. That is correlation work, not re-run replacement.

## Steps
1. Confirm the duplication source: match the paired findings by template id, host, and matched location, and check their run timestamps bracket the template fix. Verify: Verify: the pairs are the same template's old and new runs, itemised.
2. Decide the counting rule in writing: for one template and target, only the latest completed batch counts toward the report; earlier batches are superseded evidence. Verify: Verify: the rule is stated in the pipeline notes where a reviewer can find it.
3. Add batch identity to imported results: template id plus target plus run batch id on every record, assigned by the runner at execution time. Verify: Verify: every stored result can name its batch.
4. Change the import so a new batch for a template and target marks the previous batch superseded in the data store, excluding it from report queries while keeping it readable. Verify: Verify: re-importing a corrected run leaves the report count unchanged when the results are the same.
5. Regenerate the affected report, reconcile totals before and after, and note the correction if a doubled draft was delivered. Verify: Verify: the totals diff is fully explained by the superseded batches.

## Variant phrasings
### rerun fixed template findings counted twice supersede batch
The batch phrasing.
### agent report duplicate same template old new run
The symptom phrasing.
### idempotent reimport scanner results run identity
The idempotency phrasing.

Compatibility: Compatibility: any agent pipeline that re-runs templates or scans; batch identity must be assigned where the tool is invoked.

## Why it happens
Pipelines usually treat imports as additive history, which is right for evidence and wrong for counting. A re-run is a replacement measurement, not an additional one, and without a batch concept the data model cannot express that. The double count then looks like diligence, more findings after more work, so nobody questions it until a client recounts by hand.

## Edge cases / pitfalls
- A re-run that finds less than the original may have been run with different options; record the options hash per batch so superseding is defensible.
- Never delete superseded batches; a finding that vanishes between batches is itself reportable history.
- Partial re-runs covering only some targets must supersede per target, never for the whole template across the engagement.

## Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_oEVenRtwxG73iRmUWxT_zA