Files
stack/docs
mos-dt-0andClaude Opus 5 eae62a598a docs(remediation): bank D-48 (a boundary statement that was wrong) and D-49 (idle is not available)
D-48 is Mos's error, banked in Mos's words at Mos's request, and renumbered from the D-46 he suggested
because that number is already the empty-registry finding — the ledger is the primary product and a
duplicated number corrupts it.

Three seats shipped and approved "sound against an author who cannot rewrite main; residual =
compromised main; owner Builds 1-2". A1 does not rewrite main; it repoints a local remote-tracking ref
with one unprivileged git update-ref, which I reproduced in seconds. So the documented residual
described an exotic threat while the real one is trivial. Stating a boundary is not the same as stating
it correctly, and an understated residual is worse than none because it reads as rigorous. Everyone
checked a both-directions statement EXISTED; nobody checked it was TRUE. That is D-19's own move 2
performed with wrong content, and the third distinct way the render/verify principles have failed
inside their own enforcers.

And the correct answer was already written down. f10-coder's handoff holds the wrong claim at line 21
and, at line 29, the suspicion that overturns it — that provider-target ref selection may be
influenced by CI checkout/fetch configuration, marked honestly as unverified. rev-974 then found
exactly that. Had anyone run the suspicion down, D-48 would not have shipped. Requirement banked on
RM-02/RM-34: a labelled suspicion that contradicts a shipped claim must BLOCK that claim until
falsified. Suspicions are currently recorded and ignored, which makes honest labelling free of
consequence — where one targets a boundary or integrity claim it is a pre-registered check nobody ran.

D-49 refines the parking rule and supersedes the rationale of the coder-mos1 (c) ruling: the threshold
is not "is the seat idle" but "can it still take the next lane". f10-coder was idle with work pushed
and frozen, which reads as safe, but at 97.4% could not have taken the remediation the pending verdict
was about to require. Rotating on that asymmetry was the only clean boundary available.

The detection was discipline, not a mechanism — I was not watching seat context in real time and Mos
caught it on a manual sweep. Requirement on RM-58/P-LIFECYCLE/the coordinator daemon: the coordinator
watches token budget across seats and pre-empts at threshold, so a keystone seat's ceiling is never
found by a failed round or a lucky sweep. Interim we both sweep; the mechanism retires the sweep.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
2026-08-01 13:20:23 -05:00
..