Why: Capture nil-card panic and intent data-flatten field fixes found
during local prod acceptance without revising the final closure verdict.
Evidence: Backend#173 #174; prod action checklist
Impact: Field-fix log lists the two hotfixes and their PRs.
Refs: GenUI prod deploy; fix track
Why: Record that the known-boundary production deploy/acceptance ran
on the local prod svc instance with auth and PG.
Evidence: scripts/svc.sh prod list; acceptance API checklist
Impact: Usage guide boundary list no longer says deploy is pending.
Refs: GenUI prod deploy task
Why: policy requires updating applicable plan progress on task
completion; WP3-I3 landed the admin-zone entrance via the generic
declaration mechanism.
Evidence: Dev PR #414 and live verification comment (R5, SELF).
Impact: progress line of 2026-10-11-rdm-two-trees-trace-audit-integration.md only.
Refs: WP3-I3/KTD4.
Why: Record the independent U5-style review for the first two B-class
surface actions and update the usage guide allowlist note.
Evidence: proposal r1 status approved; usage doc API table updated.
Impact: Documents authority for backend whitelist implementation.
Refs: U5 action-scope r2; plan GenUI boundaries 2026-10-12
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: the reviewer record must reflect that all r2 gap claims hold at the post-sync backend pin 25fbea85, and that the svc-autorecover ownership decision now has 373 lines of unregistered, partially failing in-flight work to weigh.
Evidence: SELF - drift-check receipt in the Dev task card (exit 0, all cited gaps hold); svc-autorecover suite observed 5 of 10 tests failing on 2026-10-11.
Impact: review record addendum only; proposal r2 (SHA256 9cfda252...) unchanged.
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: U4 ships the managed migration entry; the runbook is the operator-facing contract for inventory/backup/migrate, migration identity and resume rules, verification semantics, and the authorized-window switch sequence.
Evidence: backend branch feature/collab-storage-u4-migrator - integration tests green against real PostgreSQL (idempotent rerun, resume, foreign-data refusal, wrong-snapshot refusal, unknown-owner block).
Impact: docs only.
Refs: proposals/2026-10-11-collaboration-storage-and-distribution.md U4 and section 6.
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: U3 slice 2 ships admission budgets (runtime.* keys, lease semantics, yield/reacquire) and the host-side action matrix; the runbook is the single source for operators and records the versioned public-contract plan KTD13 requires.
Evidence: backend branch feature/collab-storage-u3-budget-authz (admission.go, action matrix in server.go) with admission/matrix tests green.
Impact: docs only.
Refs: proposals/2026-10-11-collaboration-storage-and-distribution.md KTD13/R8, section 5 U3.
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
weichen
