Mos ruled BLOCKING on the exit_code type confusion. Both of us had leaned non-blocking on the
unreachability argument and neither shipped it. The two decisive grounds: the direction is
wrong-ACCEPT (false and 0.0 GRANT the exemption), which is this mission's disqualifying direction and
exactly why RR12 was tolerable; and "Woodpecker is Go with an int type" is structurally the same
incidental-correlate argument RM-61 itself forbade for the signature — you cannot certify the
discriminator against infra-shift and then defend a hole in it with an infra-stability assumption.
Generalised into an RM-02 standing clause, which is the real prize: discriminator and comparison
inputs must be TYPE-STRICT. A comparison that accepts a type it should not is a wrong-ACCEPT hole by
construction; `== 0` matching False and 0.0 is one instance of a class. D-40 is the instance, the
clause is the fix. It sits alongside the D-38 clause (does this gate bind its evidence to its subject).
D-39b banks the roles-swapped half: the author does not adjudicate its own PR's blocker status and
does not move the head to enforce it. Symmetric with D-39 — a seat with a stake in the answer does not
settle the question, and a conservative motive exempts neither direction.
ACs are registered NOW, before coder-mos1 pushes and before any reviewer reads a diff; at registration
the fix exists only as an unpushed local commit I have not read, so there is no diff to retrofit to.
They also state explicitly which cases are genuine RED-FIRST (false, 0.0 — currently wrongly exempting)
and which are only regression guards ("0", null — already blocking), because demanding an impossible
red for the latter two invites weakening something real to manufacture it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
