# REGISTRY-GATE7-FILBERT-1 — verdict

Reviewer: Filbert (independent). Author of the reconciliation: Darkwing. Conflict: none; I authored none of the reconciliation or its cited plans.

## Verdict: SUPPORTED

The Gate 7 reconciliation at `/tmp/registry-gate7-review-vewu5_2t` (manifest SHA-256 `61f284fd7647e380c1f0672a8d4c10a8e6f1b94c8a0576c8366ff96e9500b586`, all five hashes verified; snapshot unchanged after review) is faithful to its cited sources. Every premise I checked traces to real bytes at source pin `50d2a2eb…`: the four source plans in the snapshot are byte-identical to the pin, and the reconciliation's own SHA-256 citations (`5f010ef6…` registry draft, `ce584082…` foundation plan) match those bytes exactly.

## Findings by assigned check

1. **F1 incompatibility — SUPPORTED.** The draft's seat-global `<dataRoot>/agents/<seat>/settings-selection.json` (one mutable file, "exactly one account per provider is active for a materialization") is verified in the registry draft's runtime-seat-selection section. The #53 side is verified in the record table: Session records are "workspace-scoped… Scope is immutable"; R3 (owner Q5) gives each workspace exactly one parent project and per-workspace agent registration. No owner ruling imposes one-running-session-per-seat (R24 limits connections per session, not sessions per seat), so two concurrent workspace sessions of one seat needing different accounts is a real case the single mutable file cannot express. The incompatibility verdict follows from the sources.

2. **F2 placement — SUPPORTED.** The Execution record already carries "resolved-context reference" and "launch/configuration hash references," and the Context manifest record exists to capture "exactly which approved inputs were supplied." Recording the selected settings profile/account set and generated-file manifest identity there adds audit lineage without a second system configuration, consistent with the record table and with R17's boundary (harness/model settings in fingerprints; credentials excluded).

3. **F3 relaunch-vs-fork — SUPPORTED.** The draft's "selection normally applies on relaunch/new session; in-session identity swapping is deferred" is verified in its own text. The #53 rule "Resume retains session ID but creates a new execution ID" is verified in the record table, and session records carry creation mode and predecessor reference. F3 states the conditional fork/relaunch semantics without deciding draft gate 6; the pin-representation and unpinned-relaunch questions stay in O3 as recommendations.

4. **F4 core preserved — SUPPORTED.** Gate 7 as written ("host-side noninteractive OAuth refresh… prove refresh without exposing or duplicating tokens") is quoted accurately; the draft's launch/ensure refresh step ("refusal leaves prior generated files untouched") keeps refresh host-side and fail-closed. F4's claim that workspace scoping changes where a selection is recorded, not who may refresh, is consistent with both sources.

5. **O1 ruling survey — SUPPORTED.** R14 ("no credentials in either"), R16 (current revision per execution, running conversations not silently reloaded), R17 (fingerprint extension excluding credentials), R21 (no duplicate launch), R23 (revocation stops affected executions), R24 (one controlling connection), and R33 (invocation-level evidence with credential protection mandatory) all exist verbatim with the content O1a–O1d claims. O1b and O1d are framed as precedent and reinforcement, which is honest: they are analogies, not registry rulings. My own search of the four files found no owner decision on named launch profiles or session account pinning; D10 explicitly leaves credential-sharing and configuration lifecycle open. "No contradiction found" holds.

6. **F5 exclusions — SUPPORTED.** F5 decides nothing in draft gates 5, 6, or 8–10; O3's three items are labeled recommendations, and the record's header and status repeat "analysis, not plan approval" and "no implementation authorized." The central-registry exclusions (no per-workspace credential forks, no grant widening, single registry authority) match the draft's central design and repository canon.

## Notes (non-blocking)

- F1's "must be revised toward per-execution materialization inputs" reads as a direction, but it is grounded in the demonstrated incompatibility and explicitly leaves the shape of the profile layer (gate 5) to the owner via O3. That stays on the analysis side of the line.
- The pause framing ("reconciled with concurrent workspace sessions before implementation; this plan does not approve it") is quoted faithfully from the foundation plan's authorization section.

This review authorizes nothing. Owner decisions remain with Jason; the reconciliation's O2 is hereby satisfied for the analysis, and O3 remains open as owner decisions.