Per Mos. The choke-point executor and PG spine are not a design preference — they are
forced. Twice during the mission's own first deliveries, work stopped against a security
property that cannot exist at the layer needing it: D-19 (audited party controls the
manifest certifying it — artifact integrity) and D-25 (audited party controls the code
entering the sandbox — execution integrity). Both reduce to self-verification by the
audited party is not verification, and both resolve only via an authority outside its
control.
Neither proof was sought; both arrived while shipping something else, from different
directions, at different layers. An architecture forced by two independent impossibility
proofs is stronger evidence than one argued for.
RM-60 records Mos's sharper option analysis: A (unprivileged userns) does NOT fix the
vulnerability — it grants a capability and leaves the ORDERING defect untouched, so B is
required regardless; A without B is kernel exposure bought for nothing. B is the correct
primitive, generalises to RM-59 and the choke-point executor, and may not need A at all.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Per Mos, with his two additions.
Charter gains a fourth first-class principle: when a property cannot exist at the layer
that specified it, three honest moves are mandatory — implement what the layer can
guarantee; state the boundary in BOTH directions (what it does not defend AND what it
does, since either alone misleads); and record the real guarantee as a TRACKED
DEPENDENCY, not prose. A written-down gap is acceptable engineering; an implied-fixed
gap is the mission's core failure in a new costume.
The residual risk is now RM-59 (depends_on RM-12, RM-21, RM-25) — a real backlog task
owned by the choke-point executor and spine, which verify from outside the worktree's
authority. Mos's point: 'record where the guarantee comes from' only holds if the record
is a live dependency someone must close; a documented gap with no owner becomes a
permanent gap that reads as intentional.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Per Mos. Two first-class principles alongside observe-the-property:
1. Pre-registration prevents RETROFITTING and nothing else. A pre-registered check set
can be WRONG (D-8), INCOMPLETE (D-17), or INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT (D-18). It confers
neither correctness nor coverage nor consistency. All three modes were found on this
mission's own first delivery, by the machinery applied to its own work. RM-02's four
clauses are the enforceable form.
2. Never ship an integrity claim dressed as a property. A verification artifact
writable by the actor whose behaviour it certifies certifies the attack. It must sit
inside its integrity envelope, publish atomically, and carry a tamper negative
control observed red. If it cannot be made tamper-evident, say so and reconsider —
an honest 'this cannot be verified' is always available and always preferable to
laundering foreign content as certified.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Applied D-14's own interim rule immediately instead of waiting to be bitten again, and
it caught a second instance within minutes: MISSION.md's standing directives still
stated the DB hard-cutover with no mention of Mos's binding qualification that the
spine must not be a single-point hard-stop (degraded mode + rollback artifact
required). A seat reading the charter would have designed toward an availability
posture the coordinator had explicitly rejected, with the superseded 'no DB means the
fleet stops' recommendation nowhere contradicted.
Two un-propagated rulings out of two that touched charter text. Without a mechanism,
propagation failure is the default outcome, not an oversight — which is the argument
for D-14 being a requirement rather than a discipline.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
The charter's build-1 cell still named mosaic_orchestrator.py::run_single_task after
DECISION-1 ruled against it. Leaving the charter contradicting the ruled decision would
mislead any future reader who starts there — corrected in place with the rationale and
provenance, rather than only in TASKS.md.
Also: status PLANNING -> EXECUTING; scout TODO discharged (file is in-tree) with a note
that its findings stand but its recommended wire-in point is superseded.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Charter gains a first-class principle per Mos: no write is done until the requested
PROPERTY is observed; a success exit code is not evidence. Success output is designed
to be believed — that is why the inert-gate class exists and why the P-WRAPPER
tri-state is not optional. Recorded with its provenance: the orchestrator committed
this exact error (D-12), and three of the session's twelve instances were its own.
D-13: diagnosing D-12 found two parallel credential registries that can disagree.
gitea-mosaicstack-mos-dt-0.token EXISTS, but tea has no mosaicstack login for that
identity — so raw-API paths work while tea-dependent wrapper paths silently degrade.
tea is not stale; the login does not exist. Capability declared authoritative by the
token-file set does not govern the tea path.
RM-04 must reconcile the registries (or assert agreement at startup, with a must-fail
control). RM-50's pre-dispatch check must verify capability for the path actually used.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
mos-dt-0andMos