Why: Keep the planning index aligned with the approved scope and actual U1 results.
Evidence: The RDM branch saved the 44-asset catalog and E1 receipts; exact candidate fidelity remains under human review.
Impact: Documentation status only; no template is published and no runtime behavior changes here.
Refs: DHF plan r0.1; RDM feature/dhf-template-assets@6af4497
Why: Keep the owner-reviewed scope and asset evidence available for implementation.
Evidence: Plan review and SELF document/source receipts are recorded in the Dev task card.
Impact: Documentation and asset inventory only; no product behavior changes.
Refs: DHF plan r0.1; owner approval to begin implementation
Why: Remove stale local-review and pending-acceptance statements after user confirmation.
Evidence: Independent stage 8 documentation review identified the status mismatch.
Impact: Update delivery status only; preserve permission semantics and the approved plan digest.
Refs: 2026-10-13 IAM I1 acceptance record; Dev policy/delivery.md.
Why: Stage 6 is approved and formal command/API results need a version-bound human acceptance decision.
Evidence: Complete SELF receipts and independent replays are linked to fixed Dev/RDM subjects; the original implementation approval is retained.
Impact: Record test coverage, predicate corrections, immutable product digests and explicitly untested later scopes. Do not mark user acceptance or shipping complete.
Refs: IAM I1 U1-U2; phase 7 acceptance
Why: The process-document main branch advanced with project membership and privacy records after this implementation plan was reviewed.
Evidence: origin/main was freshly fetched; the reviewed plan remains the same and the final combined document checks will be replayed on the resulting head.
Impact: Preserve the other task's proposal and index entries alongside the approved merge queue plan, without changing its scope or execution authorization.
Refs: Documents PR #96; origin/main 047d362; independent review docs_delivery_review
Why: Legacy upload events and synced duty flows need the same private-data and current-state guarantees as new member work.
Evidence: Real legacy SSE leakage and independent duty replay findings; correction evidence remains in the canonical task record.
Impact: Describe trusted per-event sharing and durable duty versions without new mandatory downstream interfaces or runtime changes.
Refs: system-project-membership r1.1; Dev feature/project-member-access
Why: The approved plan needs traceable local progress and explicit capability limitations before human implementation review.
Evidence: The owning task cards retain full local SELF startup, sync, red and green outputs; final combination checks and independent review are pending in this checkpoint.
Impact: Preserve the original approved plan and identify I1 behavior, deferred capabilities and the next separately authorized unit.
Refs: IAM plan r1; I1 U1-U2
Why: Joined members must see one globally named project and keep private conversations and source documents.\n\nEvidence: Proposal links the fixed implementation plan, explicit authorization and task evidence without claiming deployment or CI success.\n\nImpact: Define optional lifecycle extension, identity recovery, private reads and published knowledge for U2/U3/U5.\n\nRefs: Dev feature/project-member-access
Why: separate protected system actions from project authority and freeze the approved identity and resource boundaries.
Evidence: SELF document check recorded by Dev evidence; approved plan digest retained and fixed-base core rules preserved.
Impact: contract and navigation only; provider implementations, multi-role migration and deployment remain later increments.
Refs: IAM plan r1 U1; Agent-System-Dev feature/iam-i1-permission-boundaries
Why: preserve the approved plan and point readers to the actual task objects instead of treating historical planning state as current delivery status.
Evidence: user approval of plan r1 and Dev task-card receipts; actual platform activation and real trial remain NOT_RUN.
Impact: plan metadata, test-file organization and navigation only; task state remains authoritative in Dev.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-13-merge-queue-implementation-plan.md; Dev .task/feature-merge-queue-policy-draft.md
Why: turn the confirmed scheduling specification into sequenced work with explicit interfaces, evidence handling and admission validation.
Evidence: SELF plan checks verified fixed source commits, 83 relative links, six units and four Python example blocks; implementation and runtime checks remain NOT_RUN.
Impact: reviewable implementation plan and navigation only; no task scripts, workflow, platform settings or business behavior are implemented.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-13-merge-queue-implementation-plan.md; Dev policy/merge-queue.md r1; Development-Guidelines draft.11
Why: The 2026-10-13 login recovery flow was approved and merged
(Backend #187, Frontend #76, Dev #504); the master proposal must carry
the three adjudications, implementation record, and evidence pointers
per the repo's lineage conventions.
Evidence: Dev #504 HEAD CI (test/test-pg/svc-realcombo) success; browser
acceptance receipts be7ae9a2/b3a9e691 bound to Dev HEAD 268ef29 (SELF).
Impact: r3 is an implementation record only; R/KTD/U numbering semantics
unchanged; U7 explicitly NOT marked complete (atomic bootstrap and CLI
credential delivery remain). INDEX.md status line updated.
Refs: Dev docs/svc-deploy/2026-10-13-login-recovery-contract.md
Why: implement a simple workbench for nontechnical users under continuous authorization.
Evidence: current source audit and the reviewed r0.1 prototype; runtime verification remains pending.
Impact: design and plan only; task execution state stays in the Dev task card.
Refs: UI01-UI13 and the existing fast-slow display design r1.1.
Why: Record approved stage-4 design with R03 splits and U1 exit
whitelist, plus stage-5 U1 implementation plan for review.
Evidence: Document edits only; no runtime verification.
Impact: Documents proposals INDEX; no business code.
Refs: feature/fast-slow-display-design
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: user approved the proposal and U1/U4 specs and authorized push/PRs
plus U1/U4 implementation start.
Evidence: SELF conversation approval 2026-10-12; implementation still NOT_RUN.
Impact: planning status only.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-12-svc-unified-deploy-and-login-key.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: capture the reviewed design for binary/source install, env prep,
and passwordless activation via one-time restricted sessions.
Evidence: SELF source review against Dev af9c2de; implementation NOT_RUN.
Impact: Documents planning index only; no runtime change.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-12-svc-unified-deploy-and-login-key.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: The direction closes at U7 - the master record needs its
companion usage guide (enable/generate/revise/act/disable for owners)
and the combined evaluation record covering every landed increment
with its evidence chain and known boundaries.
Evidence: Live E2E on dev@b634a27 (real MiniMax-M3): progress page
presented autonomously, conversation surfaces=2, project aggregation
returns cross-conversation pages under the owner scope; receipts in
Dev task feature/generative-ui-u7-acceptance.
Impact: Documents-only (new guide + index closeout).
Refs: r2 master record; U5 scope r2; Dev task
feature/generative-ui-u7-acceptance
Why: between the review round and the approval decision another session completed and merged svc-autorecover (PR #396/#400/#401/#402), so the (a)-decision tracking must reflect the landed slice and the remaining U2 delta.
Evidence: SELF - merged main history c622372 and archived card .task/archive/feature-svc-autorecover.md (10/10 tests, 146/146 governance, CI green on e0b49d1).
Impact: review record, INDEX; proposal r2 body unchanged.
Refs: PR #396#401
Why: the human gate resolved on 2026-10-12 - r2 approved (five stages at once) and option (a) adopted; the review record, proposal index and status navigation must reflect it.
Evidence: SELF - user decision relayed in conversation; stage-review details in the Dev task card; proposal r2 body unchanged (SHA256 9cfda252...).
Impact: review record, INDEX entry; no plan content change.
Refs: Dev task card .task/feature-service-restart-recovery-plan.md
Why: absorb the external source-review round - pin the shutdown budget change, close the U1 acceptance gap for program/cwd changes, gate U4 public states on a mapping table, and make the svc-autorecover coordination an explicit human decision.
Evidence: SELF - external review round 2 in the review record; r2 SHA256 9cfda2520b913e6966c68fb3f66fb7bc8382a8f7a2b69cb364122216dcdb72cd; all reviewed claims re-verified against the pinned baselines.
Impact: documents only; four targeted amendments (U1/U3/U4/section 9) plus version bump and INDEX update; requirements and metrics unchanged.
Refs: Dev task card .task/feature-service-restart-recovery-plan.md
Why: U5 landed via RDM PR #213 (merge 1dce69d); all five implementation units now complete.
Evidence: RDM PR #213 merged=True.
Impact: plan status + U5 progress + INDEX.
Refs: RDM PR #213
Why: U4 landed via Dev PR #368 (merge 7aa8fd9).
Evidence: Dev PR #368 merged; CI green.
Impact: status line + U4 progress + INDEX only.
Refs: Dev PR #368
Why: The U6 precondition (benefit evidence from U4/U5) resolves to the
owner actually using the landed U1-U5 capability - the human usability
comparison marked NOT_RUN since U1 finds its execution path here; the
user ruled 2026-10-11 to evaluate first and decide U6 after.
Evidence: Ruling collected via the session question panel on
2026-10-11; U1-U5 all merged (Dev #329/#336/#345/#351/#367).
Impact: Documents-only (master record U6 gate note + index status).
Refs: r2 U6 clause; Dev task feature/generative-ui-u6-gate-record
EOF
)
Why: The user ruled on the three questions (categories and ranges
approved as proposed; C-class limited to plugin KV plus task ledger;
confirm UX reuses the inline card); the proposal becomes the approved
scope and unblocks the U5 implementation task.
Evidence: Ruling collected via the session question panel on
2026-10-11; implementation task feature/generative-ui-u5 starts under
policy/delivery.md.
Impact: Documents-only (proposal r2 + index status).
Refs: r2 master record U5; Dev task feature/generative-ui-u5
EOF
)
Why: The r2 U5 clause requires a human review of the action scope
before implementation; this draft grounds the decision in the current
command inventory and existing safety machinery.
Evidence: Source facts cited inline (builtin command list with risk
levels, DangerHigh inline-confirm flow with pendingStore, audit
envelope) verified against backend main on 2026-10-11.
Impact: Documents-only (new proposal + index entry); no code changes.
Refs: 2026-10-10-generative-ui-plugin.md (r2 U5); Dev task
feature/generative-ui-u5-scope
Why: U3 landed via RDM PR #201 (merge dbc41b6); the master record must reflect actual progress.
Evidence: SELF U3 closeout doc check exit 0 (receipt in Dev closeout task card).
Impact: proposal status line, U3 progress paragraph, INDEX row only.
Refs: RDM PR #201; Dev feature/rdm-u3-closeout
Why: Dev PR #340 pinned this Documents branch tip while it was never merged into Documents main (cross-repo pin discipline); this reconciliation unifies both planning lineages.
Evidence: merge-base 2a5f658; INDEX conflict resolved as union (U1+U2 progress row + two new plan entries).
Impact: docs only.
Refs: Dev #340
Why: U2 landed via RDM PR #197 (merge fe8a75b); delivery policy requires the master record to reflect actual progress at task completion.
Evidence: SELF U2 closeout doc check exit 0 (receipt in the Dev closeout task card); RDM PR #197 merged=True via API.
Impact: proposal status line, U2 progress paragraph, and INDEX row only.
Refs: RDM PR #197; Dev feature/rdm-u2-closeout
Why: retain the newly merged RDM U1 progress alongside the final-target plan.
Evidence: resolved the single index conflict by keeping the updated U1 entry and both new plan links; diff check passed.
Impact: documentation merge only; business validation NOT_RUN.
Refs: docs/proposals/INDEX.md
Why: reconcile the confirmed project, privacy and duty rules with all approved product requirements.
Evidence: current RDM d8d7e743 source review, recorded source receipt, and exact 34 UR/68 SR/10 F matrix checks; business validation NOT_RUN.
Impact: reviewed planning documents only, covering all 69 template types and the existing XLSX asset; no runtime changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-11-rdm-final-target-completion.md
Why: U1 landed via RDM PR #195 (merge 05b7d1a); delivery policy requires the master record to reflect actual progress at task completion.
Evidence: SELF closeout doc check exit 0 (receipt in the Dev closeout task card); RDM PR #195 merged=True via API.
Impact: proposal status line, U1 progress paragraph, and INDEX row only; no scope or requirement change.
Refs: RDM PR #195; Dev feature/rdm-u1-closeout
Why: preserve the user decision from the previous planning turn before expanding scope.
Evidence: r1.1 records the explicit user response; prior documentation-check receipt is in the Dev task card.
Impact: planning metadata only; no business changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-11-rdm-template-dialog-generation.md
Why: connect the existing RDM assets and two-trees model to a reviewable document workflow.
Evidence: source inventory at RDM 0081628a; document structure and local link checks recorded as SELF in the Dev task card; business validation NOT_RUN.
Impact: planning and inventory documents only; no implementation or deployment.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-11-rdm-template-dialog-generation.md
Why: branch protection requires the head to contain the current base before merge.
Evidence: fetched origin/main=336a90f0ade0ffe049879ca5159a61f0a3948708.
Impact: integrate upstream changes without rewriting task history.
Refs: Documents PR #63
Why: The U1 controlled trial (three arms on synthetic materials,
MiniMax M3 + M2.7-highspeed, CNY 3 spent of the 200 cap) finished on
2026-10-11; its evidence changes the plan and must live in the master
record: goal-driven structure divergence holds (6/6), generation must
go through tool arguments (text-channel JSON discipline is the floor),
highspeed is rejected as the generator, and the first release keeps the
in-house renderer.
Evidence: Full data and failure taxonomy in Dev task
feature/generative-ui-u1 (.task/genui-u1/report.md, SELF; CI gate on
the Dev PR). Tool-channel and response_format probes recorded there.
Impact: Proposal r1 -> r2 (new results section, catalog/model/channel
revisions); INDEX entry updated. No code or contract changes.
Refs: Dev task feature/generative-ui-u1; Documents PR #60 (r1)
Why: the user reviewed and approved the plan (2026-10-11, five stages bundled) and chose a two-tier admin model for KTD4 instead of strict ledger separation.
Evidence: SELF user session rulings recorded in the Dev task card; document-check receipt follows in the task card evidence section.
Impact: proposal r1 and INDEX now record approval and the two-tier admin ruling; no code or deployment change.
Refs: Dev feature/rdm-two-trees-audit-plan
Why: assess existing two-tree and trace-network capabilities and define project-scoped inspection.
Evidence: SELF source receipt and document checks; business and runtime verification were not run.
Impact: pending-review proposal and index only; no product implementation or deployment.
Refs: Dev feature/rdm-two-trees-audit-plan
Why: The user ruled on 2026-10-11 the three open product choices (first
pilot = full analysis page inside the conversation; enable/disable via a
trusted compiled plugin; U1 trial on MiniMax M3 + M2.7-highspeed with
sanitized materials and a CNY 200 cap), so the proposal now publishes as
the direction's master record instead of a local draft.
Evidence: Doc self-check receipts live in the Dev task card
feature/generative-ui-research; the rulings are recorded in the doc's
"用户裁定记录" section and mirrored in INDEX.md.
Impact: Documents-only change (new proposal + index entry). No runtime,
contract, or code changes; U1 trial start and deployment stay separately
reviewed.
Refs: Dev task feature/generative-ui-research
Why: freeze the direction for 10-100 user multi-project collaboration storage (PostgreSQL team tier, migration, staged multi-instance) before U1+U2 implementation starts.
Evidence: static review record and SELF audit receipt included; user approval recorded in Dev task card 2026-10-11 (instruction to start the transformation per the plan).
Impact: docs only - new proposal, index entry, review record, audit receipt; no code or runtime change.
Refs: Dev .task/feature-collaboration-storage-plan.md; plan section 5 names U1+U2 as the first increment.
Why: The user asked for a researched design covering subagent use,
tiered model routing (Claude via dmxapi for complex work, MiniMax for
the rest), a millisecond/sub-second task sandbox (record-only), and a
verdict on why the agent still feels weaker than codex/claude-code/kimi.
Why: Four research threads (external frontier survey, subagent/routing
evidence, harness-vs-model attribution, local code audit and probes)
converge on role/stage routing instead of whole-task routing, and on
three corrections to the sandbox assumptions (overlay is not a snapshot;
snapshots defer conflicts to merge time; destroy must follow sealing).
Evidence: Local measurements are SELF receipts in the Dev task card
(bwrap namespace ~7ms, overlay same, docker ~142ms; MiniMax reasoning
split; dmxapi /v1/messages cache_read; EXT-16 sandbox missing the
python-docx layer). External claims carry per-item source URLs in the
proposal's section 8.
Impact: Documents-only addition: new proposal 2026-10-10 (E1-E5/S0
increments, D/R workstreams, sandbox tiers L0-L2) plus INDEX rows for it
and the previously unlisted G1 package. No product code changes; all
implementation increments stay unauthorized until approved.
Refs: proposals/2026-10-09-agent-quality-improvement-plan.md (P4/P5,
model A/B), 2026-10-09-ext-g1-b1-b3-exec-backend.md (EXT-16),
Dev task feature/agent-exec-routing-sandbox-plan.
weichen
weichen