Why: The task needs an auditable distinction between the new mechanism checks and the failed r0.4 model sample.
Evidence: Dev task receipts for component tests, browser replay, isolated PostgreSQL, and composed build.
Impact: Documents the candidate and leaves r0.5 model quality as NOT_RUN.
Refs: U3 r0.5 implementation plan Task 5
Why: The approved plan remained an earlier review snapshot and contradicted the index and task card after U1 implementation began.
Evidence: The pre-decision r0.1 file hash is f99e1424; the additive dated note preserves that text and records owner stage 6/7 decisions, four package reviews and remaining gates.
Impact: Documentation status only; no asset or product behavior change.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-14-dhf-template-generation-plan.md
Why: The approved r0.5 design needs an auditable zero-paid execution sequence after the failed r0.4 model sample.
Evidence: The approved design object is Documents 0d473fe; current source seams, file ownership, relative links, and whitespace were checked before drafting this plan.
Impact: Add five test-first work units and explicit stage, budget, privacy, and stop gates. This commit contains no product implementation or model call.
Refs: U3 r0.5 design; Dev task feature-fast-slow-u2-u3-plan
Why: The authorized r0.4 A01 exposed an unobserved stream terminator and an unsupported numeric relationship in the immediate reply.
Evidence: Independent A01 assessment and fixed-head Backend/Dev CI are linked from the design and task record; relative Markdown links and git diff --check pass.
Impact: Propose content-free terminal diagnostics and a source-safe host acknowledgement while retaining strict tool rejection and the original A01 quality gate. This document grants no implementation or model budget.
Refs: U3 r0.4 validation; Dev task feature-fast-slow-u2-u3-plan
Why: The single authorized real-model trial produced no persisted checkpoint or final result and exposed an unsupported fast-channel inference.
Evidence: Independent read-only assessment SHA 2ac373ed66d47aaa9cdb699d3bf77eb8a515d46956ee0321b70cc0230d79b667; restricted 20-file source-verified archive manifest SHA 881991dcab17ad2539f8b24332f962e3505ab2f248662f58283fe08daa179077.
Impact: Preserve the FAIL decision, returned-versus-persisted Usage discrepancy, resource stop, and next design gate without rewriting the sample.
Refs: U3 r0.4 plan; Dev task feature-fast-slow-u2-u3-plan
Why: The approved U6 plan requires a reviewable account of three real serial deliveries, CI costs, recovery paths, and manual adoption limits.
Evidence: Dev #489/#488/#486 fixed-head Actions runs 3038/3050/3067 and main runs 3040/3053/3068; component PRs and Issue #518 preserve raw SELF and independent REPLAY.
Impact: Document observed behavior and untested automatic coordination boundaries without changing product code or declaring rollout authority.
Refs: Dev issue #518; merge queue implementation plan U6
Why: Preserve approved proposal status updates while retaining the U3 r0.4 design and implementation plan.
Evidence: The two lines of work touch disjoint document paths; merge status is clean and the parent Dev composition will be revalidated.
Impact: Documentation only; no model or runtime behavior change.
Refs: Dev U3 r0.4 Task 6 synchronization
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: turn the approved recovery design into reviewable cross-component implementation and validation steps.
Evidence: six tasks and thirty steps mapped to the spec; review-focus tests, local links and diff checks pass.
Impact: plan and validation status only; code and paid model execution remain NOT_RUN.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-14-fast-slow-u3-r04-reliable-first-checkpoint-implementation-plan.md; docs/reports/2026-10-13-fast-slow-u2-u3-validation.md
Why: the approved r0.3 A01 sample failed before any useful background checkpoint.
Evidence: preserved A01 receipt, SQLite and provider records; offline SSE and retrieval replay; local links and diff checks pass.
Impact: design and validation record only; no behavior, budget, or model route changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-14-fast-slow-u3-r04-reliable-first-checkpoint-design.md; docs/reports/2026-10-13-fast-slow-u2-u3-validation.md
Why: old r2 and r3 draft-stage paragraphs contradicted the retained approval records and current user takeover authorization.
Evidence: independent Documents review identified the ambiguity; targeted diff and link checks are captured outside the candidate.
Impact: label historical planning limits without changing genuine NOT_RUN results, deployment boundaries, or the newer login recovery implementation record.
Refs: Documents PR #89; Dev PR #489; independent review /tmp/mq-trial489-docs-independent-review-20261014.json
Why: retain the approved recovery and account additions while preserving the newer login recovery record and all current documentation.
Evidence: diff checks and affected links are captured by the evidence tool; historical CI remains scoped to its original object and is not current admission.
Impact: merge the current document target into the existing status task, preserve r3 records, and apply the user mandate that agents execute merges.
Refs: Documents PR #89; Dev PR #489; merge queue Issue #518; user continuation authorization on 2026-10-14
Why: Reviewers need the exact successful combination and a clear distinction between prepared evaluation code and paid authorization.
Evidence: Dev 6f91ca9 make test/build SELF receipt; Backend 5f83454 label regression RED→GREEN.
Impact: Documentation only; real-model quality remains NOT_RUN and six PRs stay drafts.
Refs: Dev task feature/fast-slow-u2-u3-plan; Documents PR #95
Why: Repeated independent semantic review required a conservative final source and analysis boundary.
Evidence: Backend 5f53f80 independent replay found no remaining Critical/Important; task-owned PostgreSQL and HTTP browser receipts identify separate fixed SHAs.
Impact: Code mechanism review is PASS, while real-model quality, exact Dev combination and platform gates remain pending.
Refs: Dev task feature/fast-slow-u2-u3-plan; Documents PR #95
Why: The first r0.3 code review found three unsafe inference paths despite green mechanism tests.
Evidence: Reviewer's read-only replay, Backend RED→GREEN counterexamples, isolated PostgreSQL and task-owned HTTP browser receipts are identified separately.
Impact: Keep the old review failure and new fix candidate traceable; real-model quality stays NOT_RUN.
Refs: Dev task feature/fast-slow-u2-u3-plan; Documents PR #95
Why: The new evidence-bound checkpoint candidate needs a reviewable account of what the local and browser gates prove.
Evidence: Tool-imported Dev combination, isolated PostgreSQL and real HTTP fake-stream browser receipts; previous knip failure retained.
Impact: Documentation only; r0.2 model quality remains FAIL and r0.3 paid A01 remains NOT_RUN.
Refs: Dev task feature/fast-slow-u2-u3-plan; Documents PR #95
Why: Preserve delegated project settings while keeping physical Host mutations owner-scoped.
Evidence: User explicitly approved the independently reviewed amendment and repair plan; original amendment digest recorded in the contract.
Impact: Clarify actual-actor authorization and audit, single-target owner projection, durable recovery and masked metadata; no provider implementation or deployment claim.
Refs: IAM I1 host projection amendment r1; Documents PR 98; Dev policy/delivery.md affected stages 4-5.
Why: The user approved zero-paid execution of the written plan.
Evidence: Approval response on 2026-10-13; git diff --cached --check passed.
Impact: Document status only; new paid A01 remains separately gated.
Refs: Documents PR #95; Dev task feature/fast-slow-u2-u3-plan
Why: Avoid presenting an earlier extension surface as the current provider after main advances.
Evidence: Independent documentation review identified a non-blocking version attribution issue.
Impact: Attribute the existing-capability table to Backend 0f192a48; preserve contract semantics and approved plan digest.
Refs: IAM I1 stage 8 document review.
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: Preserve the explicit stage 7 decision before formal review and integration.
Evidence: User confirmation in this session; document consistency receipt 17a3542f8e69fc899a05a152d258b721a8aaab4cd0a3629f8f5cbb7364d77d84 (SELF).
Impact: Record acceptance of the fixed I1 candidate and its stated limitations; leave the approved plan unchanged.
Refs: Dev policy/delivery.md stages 7-9; IAM I1 permission contract.
Why: The approved r0.3 design needs a reviewable implementation and validation path.
Evidence: Design approval recorded in the task conversation; plan self-reviewed against the spec and current Core/Backend interfaces; git diff --cached --check passed.
Impact: Documentation only; semantic code and paid model trials remain unapproved.
Refs: Dev task feature/fast-slow-u2-u3-plan; Documents PR #95
Why: The approved r0.2 A01 produced an unsupported set-membership claim despite an explicit prompt warning.
Evidence: Independent read-only replay of the fixed A01 result, source text, persisted checkpoints and final card; spec self-review and link checks.
Impact: Defines a conservative no-extra-model-call proposal for review, without authorizing semantic implementation or another paid sample.
Refs: U3 r0.2 A01 quality FAIL, user-approved r0.3 design direction
Why: The failed model sample must remain reviewable beyond the task-owned temporary directory.
Evidence: Eighteen copied files rehashed and checked at restrictive modes; protected route key was not copied.
Impact: The report points to a durable, access-restricted archive without upgrading the failed quality verdict.
Refs: U3 r0.2 A01 independent replay
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 one authorized trial produced useful stages and a final answer but also an unsupported phase-membership claim.
Evidence: Fixed SQLite, provider and result hashes; tool-imported SELF receipts; independent read-only source-by-source replay.
Impact: Keep U3 quality FAIL, six PRs draft and the new diagnostic fix separate from the paid sample.
Refs: U3 quality implementation plan r0.2, Task 6
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: The final zero-paid candidate incorporates three review findings and fresh browser/PostgreSQL evidence.
Evidence: Backend RED-to-GREEN regressions; task-card SELF receipts for HTTP/browser and isolated PostgreSQL reruns.
Impact: Real-model quality remains NOT_RUN and still blocks merge.
Refs: U3 quality revision r0.2
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: The merged candidate now has complete local combination and task-owned PostgreSQL results.
Evidence: Imported SELF receipts for make test && make build and Backend runmgr/cardsvc/store on isolated PostgreSQL.
Impact: The report keeps final exact-head and model acceptance gates pending for the next candidate SHA.
Refs: U3 quality revision r0.2
Why: The resolved cross-component candidate now has actual HTTP/browser evidence and one diagnosed fixture failure.
Evidence: Task-card SELF sync and browser receipts, including manifest verification and two passing Playwright cases.
Impact: The report keeps model quality NOT_RUN for r0.2 and the older paid failure unchanged.
Refs: U3 quality revision r0.2
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
weichen
weichen