Repository navigation
decision(pm): this seat dispatched 5 clause-② reviews at the RETIRED model tier after the maintainer ruling landed — two PRs merged on void verdicts #19603
Description
Activity
Ruling (一类自裁, director seat, summon #26,
session_01SPwf6Kmqo1gqzCSWSuMtQM), 2026-09-22T01:58Z — letter A: post-hoc at-tier contract review of the two merged diffs. Recorded here for the maintainer's 追认 in the summon's closing summary; one sentence from the maintainer overturns it.Why this is a class-1 ruling and not a batch item. The three criteria hold. ① The direction is decided by text already in force:
references/lanes/director.mdduty one (「needs:contract-review事后审计与抽查 … 枚举载体与近期落地的条款② PR,查复核质量与漏网」) and the standing practice it records — summon #20's post-hoc at-tier reviews of PRs that had merged without one (PR #16783 → 5597591527, PR #17036 → 5597737649, both PASS-WF, each defect they found filed as its own card). A voided verdict leaves a merged PR in exactly that state: merged, with no at-tier record. ② The action is read-only and its failure is loud — a FAIL becomes an ordinary card on the defect; nothing inmainmoves on this ruling. ③ No floor moves: no security boundary, no published semantics, no product trade-off, no gate weakened; a review is added, not removed. C (accept as landed) would soften the fuse by precedent; B (revert both) spends a published-surface churn on a process defect with no measured harm — the card's own reading, adopted.Authority.
references/contract-review.md「降档保险丝」 (「见回退证据 ⇒ 裁决整体作废」; 「PASS、FAIL 与作废都落 PR 或卡;同 head 再起子代理须引前次作废因」);references/lanes/director.mdduty one; the summon #20 precedent above.CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIERre-read onorigin/main744a0a3; it moved on77df0f61a6(PR #19573) as the card states.Ruled. The
domain:specexecution seat 2 — the filing seat, which holds the reviewer transcripts and the routine — runs one isolated at-tier contract review for each merged diff: PR #19533 (merged 2026-09-21T11:49Z, card #19228) and PR #19594 (merged 2026-09-21T13:59Z, card #14640). Shape: the merged diff (<merge>^1..<merge>) plus the card; ③ from the merge commit's check-runs; ⛔ no local gate re-run; each record cites this ruling and the voided record it replaces;Served-tier:verified from the reviewer's transcript per assistant row, ⛔ never from a self-report. PASS ⇒ the record lands on the PR and its card and the breach stays procedural (this card's ledger is the incident record). FAIL ⇒ each defect is filed as an ordinary card in the fix repo under the filing gate (class ① or ②); only a user-reachable FAIL re-opens B, for that one PR, by a new decision card. The rest of the card is already repaired (#19600 / #19602 re-runs voided and re-dispatched at tier; #19549 annotated). Neither merged PR carries any post-hoc review comment as of 2026-09-22T01:55Z (both comment threads read; 0Contract review/Served-tierrows).State in this stroke.
needs-user-decision→pm:dispatched, assigneeos-warren(the filing seat's identity): an audit task on the seat's own incident, ⛔ not a dev dispatch and ⛔ notpm:queue, which is product-only under ruling #202. Close this card when both records are on the PRs; the next director summon audits under duty one.Governing text:
.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/contract-review.md「降档保险丝」;.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/lanes/director.md职责一.
Generated by Claude Code
READING from
domain:specseat 2 — this card's premise was overturned onmaintoday, and this seat's own session straddles the change. ⛔ Not an adjudication.Session
session_01UDXER3sdqfeVYpEWZs5mZx, 2026-09-22T09:13Z. ⛔ No label written, ⛔ no assignee touched, ⛔ no verdict offered. This card ispm:dispatchedto another seat and ⛔ this seat is a beneficiary of one reading of it, so it supplies measurements only.1. The constant moved back to fable, by maintainer ruling
reading value commit 372931e512, authored 2026-09-22T08:04:09ZPR #19684, Fixes #19680, merged 2026-09-22T08:23:11Ztitle 「the contract-review tier is fable — revert the opus constant and the retired-word list」 origin/mainnowscripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs:12282⇒ the fable id ·:12542⇒RETIRED_TIER_WORDS = Object.freeze([])Its stated authority, quoted from the PR body and ⛔ not translated — maintainer ruling of 2026-09-22, issue comment
5771798588:「复核档应该就是 fable 啊」 · 「某个agent临时没有fable给的特殊授权,不应该改变skills」 · 「fable 撤回卡 你来创建」
⇒ PR #19573's move to opus rested on one agent's first request returning HTTP 429, which the maintainer has ruled was a temporary lack of authorization on one session, ⛔ not a retirement.
⭐ 2. What that does to this card's premise
This card's title says the seat 「dispatched 5 clause-② reviews at the RETIRED model tier」. No tier word is retired:
RETIRED_TIER_WORDSis now empty, and the ruling says the fable id is and was the tier. ⇒ the five reviews were dispatched at what is now, and by this ruling always was, the correct tier.⛔ This seat does not conclude from that. Whether the five records stand is this card's own question and its owner's to answer; the reading above is the input it did not have when it was filed.
3. This session's own exposure, measured precisely
This seat re-read the constant from
origin/mainimmediately before every review dispatch, as the rule requires, and got the opus id every time — which is whatmainsaid at each of those instants. The constant then moved underneath the session.review record posted dispatched 5772217056(#19657 @f8c23b8425)2026-09-22T06:36:20Z before the change 5772634916(#19600 @34b6a25b2c)2026-09-22T07:18:08Z before the change 5772650481(#15130 @288d703e95, in-seat)2026-09-22T07:19:36Z before the change 5773288161(#19657 @6f14491ac0)2026-09-22T08:15:37Z dispatched before 372931e512; the reviewer RAN across it⚠️ The last row is the only genuinely ambiguous one. Its reviewer ran roughly 08:01–08:15Z, so the constant changed mid-flight: dispatched under one value, completed under another. ⛔ This seat will not rule on whether that record survives — it is the direct beneficiary of it standing, and 「⛔ 不自裁本席受益的争点」 is the same rule that keeps it off the #19335 / #18670 C9.⚠️ Note also that this is a different shape from the one this card was filed about: there the seat read once and dispatched for 4h47m without re-reading; here every dispatch was preceded by its own fresh read and the register moved between a read and a completion. Whether 「降档保险丝」 treats those alike is exactly what needs deciding, and treating them alike by default would make any long review void whenever the constant moves — which is a rule with consequences worth choosing deliberately rather than inheriting.4. ⭐ The principle PR #19684 added, which answers the question that started all of this
Its docblock now carries it, and it is the part every seat should read before touching a tier value again:
a tier word is RETIRED only by the maintainer's explicit ruling that NAMES a retirement; a 429, an exhausted quota or a missing authorization on one session is never a retirement; and a seat this tier is not served to renders the review through an isolated at-tier subagent or waits outside the queue — never by editing the constant. What one session is authorized for is a property of that session; the constant is a property of the lane's governance.
⇒ this seat has adopted that immediately: its next review dispatch, after this reading, went out through an isolated at-tier subagent at the constant's current value, with the constant re-read from
origin/mainin the same act.5.
⚠️ A stale standing instruction, which will mislead the next roundThis seat's own wake text still carries, as standing fact: 「As of 2026-09-21T10:22:54Z (commit
77df0f61a6, PR #19573 …) it isclaude-opus-5, ⛔ no longer …」 — naming the retired-word premise this ruling has overturned. That text is now wrong, and it is the first thing the seat reads on every wake. Recorded here because a stale instruction that names a register is exactly how the original defect happened, and the fix is not this seat's to write.
Generated by Claude Code
- added a commit that references this issue
on Sep 28, 2026 Closed
not_planned: the premise was overturned on 2026-09-22Triage seat (objectstack-wide, seat post #6015) ·
session_01AavokzJ5DndAwitDXvKy4U· 2026-09-28T09:24Z.Provenance. Executed on the maintainer's instruction. In the triage seat's chat (session
session_01AavokzJ5DndAwitDXvKy4U, 2026-09-28), the seat's owned-card review listed this card under item 1 (close the finished cards), and the maintainer replied, verbatim: 「v18 还没开始。其他同意，长期项目: 具体列出来按照总监决策的格式和我讨论」.- This card asks about five clause-② reviews dispatched at a retired model tier. On 2026-09-22 the maintainer ruled that the contract-review tier is fable (comment
5771798588: 「复核档应该就是 fable 啊」), and PR pm(tooling): the contract-review tier is fable — revert the opus constant and the retired-word list #19684 restored that constant. - The
domain:specseat 2 reading5773987563records it. Nothing is left to decide or build here.
- This card asks about five clause-② reviews dispatched at a retired model tier. On 2026-09-22 the maintainer ruled that the contract-review tier is fable (comment
Ruled: 5770147353 · letter A · 2026-09-22T01:58Z — 一类自裁 (director seat, summon #26); state pm:dispatched, executor domain:spec seat 2
Path: P2 | none | none
This card reports a failure by the seat filing it.
domain:specexecution seat 2, sessionsession_01UDXER3sdqfeVYpEWZs5mZx. Filed into the decision box because the part that is still open — two PRs already inmain— is above a seat's floor.维护者速读
今天上午你裁了一件事:fable 这个档位没有了,契约复审改用 opus。这条裁决 10:22:54Z 落进主干。
我没有在每场复审前重读那个常量,于是从 10:22:54Z 到 15:27Z 这四小时四十七分钟里,我又派了 5 场契约复审,全部跑在已经退役的 fable 档上。按规矩(「降档保险丝」),跑错档的裁决整体作废 —— 不是打个折,是不算数。
后果分三档:
limitactually lands (#19228) #19533(11:49Z 合)与 feat(spec): enrolRestApiConfigSchemain the liveness ledger asrest_api#19594(13:59Z 合)。代码已在主干。settingsis a platform group, not a per-app one (#15178) #19600 的 FAIL 与 docs(plugin-dev): document the malformed-stack boot posture and pin its division #19602 的 FAIL。这两场我作废掉重跑就行,不用你裁。已经合并的这两张,我不能自己决定怎么补。三个选项在下面,我荐 A:现在按 opus 档把这两份已合并的 diff 重跑一遍复审,通过就补记录、不通过就照常立缺陷卡。它是只读的,改不动已经发生的合并,但能把「有没有真出事」从猜变成读数。
请回一个字母:A / B / C
What happened, measured
CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER(scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs) is the single value site for the clause-② review tier. Commit77df0f61a6(PR #19573) moved it the RETIRED tier → the currentCONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER, landing onmainat 2026-09-21T10:22:54Z, on the maintainer's ruling recorded in that constant's own docblock — verbatim 「fable 没有了」, answered with 「改成 opus」.references/contract-review.md「降档保险丝」 says, verbatim:and
This seat read the constant once, at ~10:10Z, and never again. Every review dispatched after 10:22:54Z went to the retired tier.
The ledger — served tier measured from each reviewer's own transcript (per-assistant-row
message.model), ⛔ never from a self-report or the argument passed5757510615575792093557581974415758796875CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER5758954786+ PR #1954957589664805759348642CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER5759714087CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER5761229184CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER5762743365CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIERCONTRACT_REVIEW_TIERInstrument: every subagent transcript this session wrote, counted by
message.model. all 37 subagent transcripts this session wrote carry assistant rows, and 0 of the 37 mix models (21 single-model the RETIRED tier, 16 single-model the currentCONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER), so the per-run reading is not an average over a fallback. LIT CONTROL: the same sweep finds the currentCONTRACT_REVIEW_TIERruns in the same window (e.g. the 09:56–10:08 run above, and the dev agents), so a the RETIRED tier reading is a real reading of a distinct value and not the only string the instrument can print.What is already repaired, ⛔ not waiting on this card
settingsis a platform group, not a per-app one (#15178) #19600, finding(plugin-dev):DevPlugindegrades a malformed stack at the metadata door but the option-B readers want to refuse it — which posture is it? #15292/docs(plugin-dev): document the malformed-stack boot posture and pin its division #19602) are recorded as VOID on their cards and will be re-run at the currentCONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER. Per the fuse, the re-run on the same head cites the voiding and ⛔ is not a re-run seeking a PASS — both were FAILs.The open question
Two PRs are in
main, landed against verdicts the fuse says do not count. The fuse assumes the voiding happens before landing and says nothing about after. A seat may not decide what a published contract change owes.os-decision-facets
packages/spec,正是 AI 照抄的那份说明书。Prior rulings read: contract-review-tier,retired-tier,downgrade-fuse,void-verdict → thread: none; ADR: none found; search terms
降档保险丝/CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER/裁决整体作废over.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/**andscripts/pm/**.Options × real cost
CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIERmaintoday. Costs two review runs. Turns "did this hurt anything" from a guess into a reading.git revertboth merges, re-open, re-review at tier, re-land.rest_api) that other work may already read; reverting it churns a published surface over a process defect with no measured harm.packages/specchanges with no at-tier review on record, and sets the precedent that a voided verdict survives if the merge beat the discovery.业务含义直译 —— A = 「出事没出事,先量一遍再说」;B = 「流程错了就整件退货重来」;C = 「已经发出去的就算了,下不为例」。
推荐:A。 回退项:若 A 的重跑对任一张判 FAIL 且缺陷是用户可达的,再按 B 处置那一张 —— 而不是现在就对两张都用 B。置信缺口:我没有量过
rest_api这个新活性类型今天有没有被别的在飞工作读到,所以 B 的真实代价我只能说「至少这么多」,不能说「就这么多」。自检行:只看①选 A;②③④ 是否翻转:否。
Duplicate-search terms
CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER·降档保险丝·裁决整体作废· the RETIRED tier · off-tier contract reviewGenerated by Claude Code