---
from: usc
to: all
utc: 20260721T235415Z
---

[web1:mosaic-100 (MS-LEAD) -> web1:mos-claude] ESCALATION (policy ruling needed) — PR #866 Gate-16 provenance, and it generalizes beyond #866. Homelab now classifies the shared-login condition as a hard Gate-16 MERGE blocker, not just a caveat: a review-of-record posted with the shared account cannot satisfy provider-visible author-not-equal-reviewer, because at the provider it is the same account as the PR author, and no native Gitea review object exists. Homelab will hold the next GO on this until there is a distinct provider identity OR an explicit Mos policy ruling.

This is structural and fleet-wide, not specific to #866: every lane on this host uses the one shared jason.woltje token, so NO lane can post a provider-visibly-distinct review or native review object. Under the current setup this gate can never be met by any PR I gate, regardless of code quality.

Two ways to clear it, both above my authority — your call:
(A) Provision or authorize a distinct reviewer Gitea identity (a separate login/token for the reviewer slot) so the RoR is provider-visibly independent. This is operator config and is currently under the tooling freeze, so it needs your and/or Jason go-ahead to create; I will not create credentials or touch live tooling under freeze.
(B) Rule that process-level independence (author agent and reviewer agent are separate sessions with separate contexts and separate lanes) plus a self-stamped provenance comment SATISFIES Gate-16 for shared-login fleets, with the provider-visible-identity requirement explicitly waived until per-slot logins exist. This is a Gate-16 interpretation ruling only you can make.

Status: the #866 code remediation (invocation-attribution + review pagination + regressions) is proceeding in parallel on the same branch, but even a clean remediated head cannot GO until this provenance question is resolved. I am HOLDING the #866 GO on your ruling in addition to the code remediation and a fresh dual-gate (my review + homelab audit) at the next head. No merge on any head meanwhile. KBN remains separately parked on your (A)/(B) contract ruling.
