Why: Preserve the merged DHF plan and governance records before refreshing the Dev combination.
Evidence: origin/main was fetched as 9062445db8082976a124e54a0000007b6391d6cf; approved two-tree records retain their hashes.
Impact: Integrate upstream documents without replacing this task or its approvals.
Refs: stage 6 dependency coordination
Why: The user approved the fixed stage 6 amendment for durable domain times and honest legacy gaps.
Evidence: Chat call_6ce04b5a3ca3496487ab2714ed208965 item 0 approves document SHA256 d78849440e6346482fc09925d402790a7ad257ef76c85275610046a845a45f37; original bytes retained.
Impact: Permit isolated implementation and tests after read isolation; real database migration and deployment remain outside this approval.
Refs: TT-D03, TT-A02, TT-A04; stage 6 time-contract amendment r1
Why: Fixed replay RED and source review show omitted domain timestamps and clock rollback can change recovered project state.
Evidence: RDM 8f80e55 contains three deterministic time RED cases; document hashes and links were checked through Dev evidence.
Impact: Save an unapproved schema and time-contract amendment plus current component and DHF dependency status; production time semantics remain unchanged.
Refs: TT-D03, TT-A02, TT-A04; stage 6 W4a and approved read-isolation revision
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: Shared project read pointers can modify cached state without an event or transaction.
Evidence: User approved the immutable r1 design and its alias, publication-order, and performance verification scope.
Impact: Allows isolated W4a state-copy and sealed-log implementation; historical time semantics remain a separate issue.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates W4a
Why: Shared read pointers still violate project snapshot isolation, while context and audit candidates now have a tested local combination.
Evidence: Fixed RDM RED, source-reviewed read-isolation options, and clean Backend combination SELF receipts are linked with precise limits.
Impact: Preserves a pending W4a design and local probe report without claiming stage-six acceptance or component release.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates W4a W6 W9
Why: Explicit low audit IDs can bypass the old default function and disappear across fixed-cutoff pages.
Evidence: User approved the immutable r1 correction; the exact isolated PostgreSQL RED receipt is preserved byte-for-byte.
Impact: Authorizes only isolated all-writer guard and offline-copy testing; live migration remains outside scope.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates W9
Why: An isolated PostgreSQL test demonstrates that explicit low IDs bypass the current committed-prefix guard and disappear across pages.
Evidence: The test-only RED and reviewed database/migration tradeoffs are bound to the documented candidate and exact SHA256.
Impact: Adds a human-review design for all online audit writes and exclusive offline copy; no runtime change or migration.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates W9
Why: A validated sensitive-text persistence defect requires a reviewed X1 source reauthorization contract.
Evidence: User approved the immutable r1 design at its recorded SHA256; the Backend RED remains preserved.
Impact: Allows isolated W6 implementation while retaining separate migration, tag and acceptance gates.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates W6
Why: Persisting goal-sensitive model prompts in long-lived context receipts violates the approved content-minimization boundary.
Evidence: A fixed Backend HEAD RED reproduces stored workflow output; source and migration constraints were reviewed against current code.
Impact: Adds a reviewable X1 interface and data correction proposal; implementation stays paused until human approval.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates W6
Why: W2 transaction consistency and PostgreSQL audit pagination need their reviewed dependency and data-order boundaries preserved.
Evidence: User approved the two immutable r1 objects at their recorded SHA256 values; local link and whitespace checks passed.
Impact: Main record now authorizes isolated W4a and W9 work while retaining separate live migration gates.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates stage 6
Why: PostgreSQL sequence IDs can become visible out of order and undermine fixed audit pagination.
Evidence: Isolated PostgreSQL late-commit reproduction and sequence cache behavior were checked against official documentation.
Impact: Adds a reviewable proposal with lock, sequence, migration, rollback, and throughput boundaries; no runtime code changes.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates W9
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 the reviewed 44-template scope, design, implementation plan, and exact stage decisions in the shared project record.
Evidence: Approved stage hashes and local links verified; W0 inventory has 44 records and current implementation limits are explicit.
Impact: Adds traceable planning, source receipts, audit-link approval, and a pending W2/W4 sequence adjustment without changing published assets.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates
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: 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: 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: 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: 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
weichen
weichen