Why: The approved written amendment needs executable, reviewable steps for explicit test accounting and independent native sandbox replay.
Evidence: Current Dev and RDM source inspection, failed Dev make test receipt, local KVM/tool availability, official Go, Ubuntu and QEMU documentation, plan link and diff checks.
Impact: Documents only. No candidate execution, runner configuration, source lock or gate behavior changes.
Refs: Documents design 1790cf8; Dev PR #537; Documents PR #100
Why: Nested Bubblewrap tests fail inside the credential-isolated candidate boundary, and a green main gate alone would hide unrun product isolation checks.
Evidence: Dev 1ea93a5 make test SELF receipt; Backend and RDM test inventory; RDM CI workflow inspection; diff and relative-link checks.
Impact: Adds a pending written design and index entry only. No execution behavior or source lock changes.
Refs: Dev PR #537; Documents PR #100; approved remediation plan 20ada84
Why: The review design, execution plan, and index still described the approved work as awaiting review or unimplemented.
Evidence: SELF Dev task commits e0c8686 through 76ad40c and the isolated governance receipts are referenced without claiming current-head CI. git diff --check and 80 relative links passed.
Impact: Documents now distinguishes completed local remediation from pending platform GATE, renewed stage 7 acceptance, and independent stage 8 review.
Refs: Agent-System-Dev #537; Agent-System-Documents #100; approved plan 20ada84
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: Turn the approved written design into separately testable work that closes three Important Stage 8 findings before migration PRs can merge.
Evidence: SELF plan/spec coverage, interface, relative-link, placeholder, code-fence and whitespace checks passed; implementation and new-head gates remain NOT_RUN.
Impact: Add a six-task plan and record the design approval without changing Dev candidate code, CI or protected branches.
Refs: Agent-System-Documents#100, Agent-System-Dev#537, Stage 8 review
Why: The read-only candidate container cannot install its own toolchain, so define a separate trusted image build step.
Evidence: SELF design consistency and whitespace checks passed; full CI feasibility remains part of implementation validation.
Impact: Preserve the no-socket, read-only candidate boundary without claiming tools can be installed after the container is locked down.
Refs: Agent-System-Documents#100, Agent-System-Dev#537
Why: Specify the approved remediation direction for three Important findings from the independent dependency-migration review.
Evidence: SELF Markdown link and whitespace checks passed before commit; written design awaits human review and implementation validation.
Impact: Add a bounded design addendum for local/CI candidate isolation, fixed-rules retry and safe generated-workspace finish without changing product code.
Refs: Agent-System-Documents#100, Agent-System-Dev#537, Stage 8 review
Why: Include the completed merge-queue trial record before reviewing the versioned-dependency documentation branch.
Evidence: Current main and migration branch have disjoint changed paths; local merge-tree shows no conflict.
Impact: Preserve the approved migration proposal and implementation plan while retaining the newer trial report.
Refs: Agent-System-Documents#100, Agent-System-Documents#101, Agent-System-Dev#537
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: 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:
Authoritative Documents main advanced during this multi-repository task.
Evidence:
Read current main 7bd4e17827d4c7c88647bf3c9199c495b60cb107; the approved dependency spec and plan digests and 120 links remain unchanged.
Impact:
Retain current recovery and RDM proposal status updates without changing this task's approved requirements.
Refs:
R15; dependency-workspace U6/U7; Documents origin/main
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:
Keep current upstream planning contracts and the approved dependency migration together without overwriting either entry.
Evidence:
SELF Dev doc checker validates R1-R15, U1-U8 and relative links against the merged Documents candidate.
Impact:
Merge current main and retain both planning index intents. Business implementations and acceptance histories remain unchanged.
Refs:
Documents a7ff466; Agent-System-Dev dependency-workspace and latest authoritative main.
Why:
Keep the approved migration scope and in-flight branch protection discoverable from the planning index.
Evidence:
SELF Dev evidence checks R1-R15, U1-U8, general standards boundaries and 116 relative links. Formal acceptance remains pending.
Impact:
Update current entry points without changing historical evidence or approval boundaries.
Refs:
Agent-System-Dev feature/dependency-workspace; approved versioned-dependency plan r1 and R15.
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: Make the approved architecture executable while preserving current and future feature branches.
Evidence: The Dev task card records the successful resumed precheck and synchronization at the current main baseline. Implementation verification remains separate.
Impact: Record approved scope, R15 and the implementation plan; no deployed behavior or release is changed.
Refs: Versioned dependencies r1; feature/dependency-workspace
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: Preserve independent repositories and a single Dev entry while reducing repeated submodule pins.
Evidence: SELF source inventory and documentation checks are recorded by Dev make evidence in the dependency-workspace task card. Migration checks remain NOT_RUN.
Impact: Add a proposed architecture and implementation sequence covering Go, frontend packages, RDM, build governance, and reusable standards. Active rules and runtime behavior are unchanged.
Refs: Dev feature/dependency-workspace; docs/proposals/2026-10-13-versioned-dependencies-and-workspaces.md r1
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 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 2026-10-12 approval covers the recovery U8 and account U7 additions, and the RDM U5 note still treated the lifecycle pull request as the whole export.
Evidence: Backend 183 and 185 plus Dev 486 were already green; Dev 482, RDM 301, Frontend 73, and Dev 488 remain open and are not marked merged.
Impact: proposal status only. No implementation or deployment claim changes.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-12-service-restart-data-recovery.md, docs/proposals/2026-10-12-svc-unified-deploy-and-login-key.md, docs/proposals/2026-10-11-rdm-two-trees-trace-audit-integration.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
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.
weichen
weichen