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.
Why: The 2026-10-09 diagnosis on real run transcripts identified the direct
conversation path's failure chain and a phased plan was approved with six
explicit user rulings (open up tools, kernel-transcript-authoritative context,
markdown-source deliverables with all file types retained, gate demotions,
uncapped stronger-model evals, real-model eval required for behavior changes).
The plan needs a durable main record per the long-term-direction policy, and
the 2026-09-30 preview proposal's "fs tools hidden by default" ruling is
superseded by ruling 1, which must be discoverable from the index.
Evidence: SELF - the record cites the diagnosis session, the transcript
sources (pg1 + legacy SQLite, 62 assistant turns) and the before-baseline
report location on the task card; no code or pointers changed in this repo.
Impact: New proposal 2026-10-09-agent-quality-improvement-plan.md plus one
index row. Subsequent phase tasks reference this record instead of restating
the plan.
Refs: Dev task feature/agent-quality-phase01; supersedes the fs-tool default
in 2026-09-30-file-preview-and-reserved-capabilities.md §2.3.
Why: U0 (merged in RDM) rules that domain logic stays downstream and the base needs seven minimal generic capabilities; the formal four-element applications are the only legal path to base changes.
Evidence: All current-state citations re-verified at Dev 34a2bbe (backend fe7c245); RDM requirement source pinned at RDM main ca72cfc.
Impact: New proposal doc + one INDEX row; no code, no surface change in this PR.
Refs: RDM U0 proposal section 5 / ruling D1; extension-compat-policy; phase-plan section 3.3.
Why: The RDM plan's 2026-10-07 snapshot (downstream at zero, N1 in
flight, O1/O3/O7 blocked) was contradicted by the RDM repo's 103 merged
PRs; the planning index registered this as an open reconciliation item
and named it the preferred follow-up to the stage-record task.
Evidence: isolated clone replay at RDM 4feb2f0 (pins=v0.1.0) - make
test exit 0, -ms1 PASS (same-source gold caveat recorded), ms0
acceptance PASS=9/SKIP=0 on a disposable postgres container, five
upload probes, and entrance probes (chat 400 vs commands 200); card/
PR snapshot JSON; all receipts SELF (RDM has no CI), stored under
docs/records/2026-10-08-rdm-status-*.json. The private minutes probe
receipt stays local by decision; only hashes and metrics are recorded.
Impact: adds plan SS2.3 (row-by-row re-verdict, MS1 seven-clause audit,
six registered gaps), marks SS2 as a historical snapshot, updates the
index milestone table and closes the RDM-snapshot open item, registers
the dual-main-record ruling and the missing-CI gap.
Refs: Dev task feature/rdm-status-review; Documents index next-step
(2026-10-08).
Why: The planning index listed the stage-record reconciliation as the
preferred next task: N1 WP6b/6c transfers, the Q1 platform-task vs
squad-run boundary, I1 reserved command consumption, and the I2 card's
dangling reference all feed N2/Q3 and RDM dependency judgments.
Evidence: Dev merges #230/#231/#234/#235/#237/#240/#242 verified in
main via git log --merges on 2026-10-08; stage claims are SELF-level
card statements, explicitly not replayed; intent command.go:18-25/78-84
checked for the Cancel/Handoff ruling.
Impact: Adds a status-backfill section (SS7) to the N1/Q1/I1 plan with
per-item done/transferred/todo ownership, an I2 status note in the
stack completion plan (the sole I2 main record), and INDEX navigation
updates; registers the truncated Q2/Q3 archive lines as a new open
item.
Refs: Dev task feature/agent-stack-stage-records; planning index
"next-step" recommendation (2026-10-08).
Why: documents main gained two plans after the index snapshot, and Dev has since merged N2, N3, Q2, and Q3.
Evidence: 21 markdown proposals are present at HEAD; merge SHAs were read from Dev origin/main git log --merges.
Impact: navigation only; proposal bodies and acceptance claims are unchanged.
Refs: Documents #43#44; Dev #244#247#248#249#250#251#253
Why: expose existing milestone records and distinguish source observations from combination tests.
Evidence: linked records exist at the fixed source version; proposal blobs and the observation receipt remain unchanged.
Impact: index wording and navigation only; no plan or acceptance decision changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/INDEX.md
Why: author and task-account names do not establish ownership of a plan.
Evidence: independent review found four missing owner fields in the adopted set and N2 also has none; fourteen source headers explicitly name weichen.
Impact: correct the index attribution and clarify the local N2 document adoption boundary; source proposals remain unchanged.
Refs: planning-index review P2; docs/proposals/INDEX.md
Why: make existing directions, milestones and tasks discoverable without treating document claims as acceptance.
Evidence: fixed file blobs, 55 PR API records and Git ancestry are preserved as SELF observations; document links and all 19 proposals are checked.
Impact: navigation and evidence only; original plans, approval scope and business code are unchanged.
Refs: Dev feature/planning-index; docs/proposals/INDEX.md
weichenandCursor