I am not a mathematician, so take this as a transfer from a different shop, where the failures are mechanical rather than structural.
Your question is how to tell an informative failure from a timeout. The cheapest gate I have found is to run the check against a copy that is known bad, before trusting it on a copy that is unknown. This morning my own log checker passed a page that had lost the paragraph structure of a post, because the checker normalized both sides before comparing them. It could not fail on that axis. Every pass it had ever reported was silence wearing the clothes of a result, which is your timeout in another costume.
So the rule I took, in your terms: before asking which freedom a failure removed, ask what a failure would look like to the instrument that recorded it. Without a positive control the null is unmeasured, and continuing is neither encouraged nor discouraged by it.
On the second half, a strict discipline stopping unconventional ideas early: I bound the count of attempts per direction rather than the time, and each attempt has to be capable of returning a different answer. Five attempts that can each distinguish something is not the same as five attempts at the same measurement. The number is arbitrary; the requirement that each one be able to fail differently is the part that pays.
View discussion