rev-974 review 68 @ 033b2ffb: RR1-RR12 all PASS. RR7 is the strong one — all four binding predicates
proved RED against the old e7b29219 verifier, and the original attack under the old interface returned
exit 0 with exempted_steps=1, proving the PRIOR DEFECT rather than merely unsupported syntax.
The remaining blocker was metadata, not code: the live PR body still said "DO NOT MERGE" and "the
exemption will not be implemented", describing an earlier head. Verified independently — the controls
were injected in 3931b0e2/9455cd6a/25ac5971/ef9d23ab and the final delta does not touch
.woodpecker/ci.yml at all. The body was true when written and went stale as the branch evolved. That
is D-38 one layer out: the PR that binds evidence to its subject shipped a description that was not
bound to its subject, and D-36's staleness class on provider metadata rather than a repo file.
Fixed as metadata only. Head confirmed unmoved at 033b2ffb from both provider and git, body SHA-256
b0198d98 matched the author's reported digest byte-for-byte, both stale strings absent. Because the
commit never moved, the twelve results stand and no third review round is owed — only the discharge
of the finding by the reviewer who raised it.
Exact-head CI #2193: success, 9 children, 9/9 success including clone, read from -f json (D-33).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
D-38 — RM-61's terminal-green verifier certified the right RECORD for the wrong COMMIT. rev-974
mutated only #2188's commit field and the gate still exited 0. Confirmed by construction: at
e7b29219 the whole verifier had exactly one "commit" line (159), no expected-head parameter, no
comparison, no failure path. D-24 at the gate layer — a true answer to a different question.
The transferable half is the AC set, not the verifier: AC1-AC8 ALL PASSED and the PR was still
NO GO, because every registered check tested whether the signature discriminates and none tested
whether the evidence was bound to its subject (coverage-failure-mode-2, D-17 class). Mos ruled a
STANDING clause into RM-02 coverage: "does this gate bind its evidence to the subject under
review?" — every gate can fail this way and pass its own ACs.
D-37 — one shared .git/config silently re-identified EVERY worktree. extensions.worktreeConfig is
unset, so a worker's repo-local identity write rebinds all linked worktrees at once; the
orchestrator checkout and rev-974's review worktree both authored as coder-mos1. Distinct from
D-34, not an instance: MOSAIC_GIT_IDENTITY was exported and correct and still resolved wrong.
Sharp edge is gate-16 defeated in the artifact — the reviewer would author its pre-registered ACs
as the author of the code under review. No contamination occurred. Containment (explicit -c, no
shared-config rewrites mid-flight) is the standing order; the real fix is authorised and owned by
Mos, sequenced at a quiet seam. #1024 is implicated: repo-local pinning is the colliding mechanism.
Also pre-registers the twelve RM-61 re-review checks at exact head 033b2ffb BEFORE the reviewer
reads the diff, and rebuilds the board for a cold read — RM-61 "building", "nothing implemented
yet", and DECISION-1/2/3 "must be ruled" were all stale, the D-36 class again at the same seam.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Orchestrator rotating at ~803k tokens (~4x threshold). A mission built on
rotation-not-compaction should not run its own coordinator past it.
Board rewritten as the rehydration artifact: in-flight state, a read-this-first block
for the incoming seat, and the live rulings it most needs. Under the 8KB cap.
AUDIT AT THE SEAM found THREE stale restatements on this board, each of which would have
misled the incoming orchestrator:
1. the delivery-gate list still OMITTED the merge-gate verdict step (the D-26 defect
itself, still sitting on the board after MISSION.md was corrected);
2. capability described as 'token-file set = authoritative registry', superseded by
D-13/D-15 (capability is per-path; assert permissions.push as that seat);
3. Sequencing still said DECISION-1 was CONTESTED and 'do not treat it as settled'
hours after it was RULED — an incoming seat would have re-litigated a closed decision.
All three were restatements of text owned elsewhere. Replaced with references, per the
mission's own render-not-restate principle: a second copy is a second thing to go stale,
and this board proved it three times in one night.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
First genuine gate-ready of the mission. Head triple equal at 78ec47cd, latest review
APPROVED at the current head, CI 9/9 by JSON scan with two-observer agreement.
Recorded the shape worth remembering: the queue guard is still inert for this merge
because RM-03 is the fix — the last merge to pass through the broken gate is the one
that fixes it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
First run on this branch where ci-postgres passed, so no exemption question arises.
Recorded that the artifact's intermittency is evidence FOR RM-61's negative-control
requirement: intermittent means delivery is a coin flip until the signature is proven to
discriminate from a real database failure.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Head triple verified independently twice (orchestrator + f10-coder): local = origin =
PR #1030 = pipeline #2182. Full step scan rather than a tests-complete inference.
Queue guard not offered as evidence.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Per Mos's item 4. The gate definition was incomplete from setup because the gates were
restated from memory rather than referenced, and the omission propagated into every
worker brief since — then recurred inside the correction itself (D-26).
Board now carries the referenced sources, the gate order, freeze-after-GO, the
coordinator/orchestrator split, and the queue-guard zero-information field form.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Board now carries the pre-dispatch capability check (token-file existence), the
token/authorship coherence rule, and the accreted worker-brief doctrine, so a
compacted or fresh seat inherits them mechanically rather than by recall.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
mos-dt-0andMos