6 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5	43f69bf167	docs(remediation): promote D-19 to charter; bind residual risk to RM-59 as a tracked edge ... 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]>	2026-07-31 19:23:15 -05:00
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5	3b191b6b34	docs(remediation): promote the three-mode taxonomy and the integrity-claim corollary to the charter ... 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]>	2026-07-31 19:14:06 -05:00
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5	d0ad6e942b	docs(remediation): propagate DECISION-2 to charter — second un-propagated ruling, found by applying D-14 ... 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]>	2026-07-31 18:12:16 -05:00
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5	f13222b76b	docs(remediation): charter reflects DECISION-1 corrected wire-in target and current status ... 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]>	2026-07-31 18:07:16 -05:00
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5	d1e7ba19ca	docs(remediation): promote observe-the-property principle to charter; bank D-13 dual credential registries ... 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]>	2026-07-31 18:06:18 -05:00
mos-dt-0andMos	01e966f36d	docs(remediation): mission charter + reconciled execution backlog (#1026) ... Co-authored-by: mos-dt-0 <[email protected]>	2026-07-31 22:47:03 +00:00