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 user approved the previously delivered local implementation and compatibility effects.
Evidence: This chat reply says approval; its objects remain c023551 Documents, b93908e RDM and 72ed8b4 Dev. Execution receipts are separate from this human decision.
Impact: Stage 6 passes and planned stage 7 begins; acceptance, shipping, later increments and production operations are not approved by substitution.
Refs: I1 implementation review on 2026-10-13
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: Separate observed local implementation and test results from formal acceptance, CI and deployment.
Evidence: Complete SELF outputs and fixed subjects are in the owning Dev and RDM task cards; independent preliminary review passed on dfb9c407.
Impact: Update review progress and explicit follow-up boundaries only; preserve approved plan and permission contract.
Refs: IAM I1 U1-U2
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: Historical observations in the approved plan used current-tense wording after implementation advanced, making the progress pointer harder to interpret.
Evidence: Independent documentation review identified the wording; the diff changes only baseline time and references current task/PR evidence. Document replay follows on the new candidate.
Impact: No change to approved units, interfaces, authorization or acceptance criteria; actual progress remains in the task and fixed-candidate records.
Refs: Documentation review Minor finding; approved plan ba4044d; U1-U6
Why: Existing public host contracts cannot prove source ownership, scoped revocation or private artifact filtering.
Evidence: The I1 documentation consistency checker preserves the approved plan digest and fixed RDM core rules; behavior verification is recorded in the owning task.
Impact: Record conservative I1 defaults and explicit follow-up provider requirements without adding public implementations.
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: provide the approved contract for the I1 implementation without altering its accepted content.
Evidence: SELF source artifact SHA-256 39b8e9a6e078dc509bd80118c1807ce6ed23e4466e5902b51f4bfa255d55c0a1; user approved the plan and authorized U1-U2.
Impact: documentation checkpoint only; no production code or runtime changes.
Refs: Agent-System-Dev feature/iam-i1-permission-boundaries
Why: Validation of the complete candidate against origin/main detected added blank lines at the end of the authored documents.
Evidence: git diff --check origin/main validates the final candidate format; unchanged semantic content remains covered by the approved specification and implementation plan.
Impact: Document whitespace only; no version obligations, execution mode or authorization change.
Refs: Merge queue implementation plan U4; formal document validation
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: the retest changed the K4 SELF result, and the plan has to record that without opening write traffic.
Evidence: SELF drill backup-20261013-013354, K1-K7 true. Documents has no CI workflow.
Impact: proposal r2.3. Second-instance writes stay closed.
Refs: #92
Why: the 2026-10-12 drill left artifact recovery failed, and the retest changed that SELF result without changing the write-traffic gate.
Evidence: backup-20261013-013354 on Dev a83588dd and backend 46073d30; K1-K7 true, RPO 65s, RTO 3s, five artifacts matched and cross-user access returned 404. SELF.
Impact: proposal moves to r2.3. Second-instance writes stay closed until REPLAY or CI and the second host exist.
Refs: docs/records/2026-10-12-u7-ops-drill-report.md docs/proposals/2026-10-11-collaboration-storage-and-distribution.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: Keep planning progress aligned with actual implemented corrections without duplicating CI and merge state.
Evidence: Reference UI155, Frontend210 and 19 local browser cases via Dev native receipts; final GATE remains separately tracked.
Impact: Planning metadata only; no deployment or model-routing claim.
Refs: work-companion-ui r0.2/r1, UI01-UI13
Why: Keep the approved design and implementation plan consistent with the current candidate.
Evidence: Reference actual SELF verification and pending independent Review and GATE, without copying command output.
Impact: Planning progress only; inherited live-model capabilities and deployment remain separate.
Refs: UI01-UI13, work-companion-ui U5
Why: preserve concurrent planning records before the Dev combination sync.
Evidence: fetched authoritative Documents main f76cce9e32.
Impact: planning record integration without rewriting history.
Refs: work-companion-ui U5.
Why: B6, C4, and C5 now have same-host results, and the plan still said the ops drills were not done and that replay was the next step.
Evidence: Dev results pgbench-20261012-131948, fault-20261012-142734, and backup-20261012-153441 (SELF). The user declined a capacity replay on 2026-10-12.
Impact: Second-instance writes stay closed. K4 remains a product defect. Replay and C3 are not started.
Refs: feature/u7-ops-drills
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: the recovery plan needs the D1-D3 remediation record before the Dev pin moves.
Evidence: repository has no .gitea workflow; combined status has zero checks. Diff is one recovery-plan section.
Impact: documents only.
Refs: #88
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: the 2026-10-12 batch-update failure still had identity, rollback, and real-combo gaps after Dev #474, Backend #180, and RDM #276. The recovery plan is the single record for that work, and the rdmcand data-ownership check needed a written result before any restore.
Evidence: read-only queries on runtime-backups/{dev,rdm1,rdmcand}/20261012T133921Z and the matching domain backups. No business rows were moved.
Impact: adds r3.1 sections D1/D2/D3 and the ownership finding that dev conversations predate rdmcand's use of dev/data, so no cross-instance restore is indicated. r3's earlier unapproved text stays unapproved.
Refs: Dev feature/svc-d1-identity-flow; Backend feature/d1-identity-open
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: keep r2/r3 proposal updates rebase-friendly before PR.
Evidence: origin/main at fetch time.
Impact: Documents feature tip includes latest main.
Refs: feature/svc-account-durability-plan
Why: Capacity ladder/60m/2h dual-instance windows finished; planning
progress must reflect SELF-pass vs remaining GATE/REPLAY/C3 gaps.
Evidence: SELF load results summarized in the new capacity report.
Impact: Preferred next becomes independent REPLAY or C3/C4/C5.
Refs: Dev feature/u7-capacity-wrap-measure; release-multi-instance.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: Dev #451 cannot pin modules/documents while feature tip and main diverge.
Evidence: merge-tree reports submodule conflict 1048e7c vs 9e4ee27.
Impact: Documents #84 tip includes main@1048e7c plus r1.1/U1 plan.
Refs: Dev PR #451; Documents PR #84
Why: distinguish timed observations from current service ownership.
Evidence: SELF task-sync and read-only observations at 18:14 Beijing time.
Impact: planning metadata only; runtime and component deployment unchanged by this task.
Refs: account r2; recovery r3
Why: account help, dev credential writes and crash recovery need a current, reviewable contract.
Evidence: SELF source and sanitized runtime observations; seven document review lenses; business and fault validation NOT_RUN.
Impact: revise two planning documents only; preserve prior approvals and mark additions pending review.
Refs: Dev feature/svc-account-durability-plan; account r2; recovery r3
Why: User authorized stage-5 start; record plan status for executors.
Evidence: Chat authorization "开始"; no runtime tests.
Impact: Documents proposal status only.
Refs: 2026-10-12-fast-slow-channel-display-u1-plan.md
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: Delivery requires writing planning progress back after U7
landed; the proposal still claimed U1+U2 start / NOT_RUN.
Evidence: SELF doc edit against archived U7 cards and release
checklist A1-A7/B1 facts.
Impact: Readers see code-done vs capacity-window-pending; adds
HTTP multi-instance vs Manager-test lesson.
Refs: Dev feature/u7-capacity-wrap-measure; release-multi-instance.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
weichen
weichen