Why: the duty page needs one record for the four domain rulings, and the earlier settings plan must show which duty-page sections it no longer owns.
Evidence: SELF review of the proposal text against the approved implementation plan.
Impact: r1 section 4 and the duty-page parts of P5 and P7 point at r2. Settings, members, and the permission matrix stay in r1.
Refs: docs/proposals/2026-10-15-rdm-duty-matrix-rework.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: keep the compose proposal in the document set while it remains under review.
Evidence: this repository has no workflow; head 2a8deac89d contains origin/main. Backend CI is already green and merged.
Impact: proposal status stays pending review. Inclusion is not approval.
Refs: #107
Why: deploy needs a reviewed design for compiling selected plugins into the base binary before that behavior is treated as approved.
Evidence: the proposal records the throwaway compose build; implementation status stays unreviewed.
Impact: adds a pending proposal and an index link. Inclusion does not approve the design.
Refs: Dev .task/feature-svc-plugin-compose.md
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: the plan's progress annex still described the pre-adjudication
state (44 needs-review, U2-U6 pending); the authoritative record must
reflect the 2026-10-14 landing: batch adjudication, publication flip
(44/44 published), U5 product-loop wiring with pilot pass, U6
per-identity matrix (41 PASS + 2 EXPECTED_BLOCKED + 1 EXPECTED_LIMITED),
and the owner-side exit items (deployment pilot, independent REPLAY,
U4 originals) now blocked on the owner per the handoff checklist.
Evidence: docs-only change in the Documents repo; all referenced RDM
PRs (#377/#381/#383/#385/#387/#389/#391) carry green CI and merged
state; pilot and matrix outputs are recorded in the RDM task cards and
docs/records/dhf/.
Impact: plan annex only; no code or asset change.
Refs: RDM docs/records/dhf/package-review-decision-2026-10-14.md;
RDM docs/records/dhf/u6-acceptance.md; u6-replay-handoff.md
Why: Preserve the owner’s Stage 5 decision and implementation method on the reviewed plan object.
Evidence: Owner approved plan 28c4ceb in the task conversation; git diff --check and relative links passed (SELF).
Impact: Documentation status only; Dev implementation remains subject to Stage 6 and 7 review.
Refs: Agent-System-Documents #105; Agent-System-Dev #518
Why: The approved Stage 4 design needs a reviewable Stage 5 implementation and test sequence.
Evidence: git diff --check, relative-link validation, M2-1 through M2-6 coverage, and placeholder scan passed (SELF).
Impact: Documentation only; no Dev queue activation or task takeover.
Refs: Agent-System-Documents #104; Agent-System-Dev #518
Why: The first trial reduced final CI churn, while later Dev merges exposed gaps in shared window records that must be addressed before broadening manual coordination.
Evidence: SELF Gitea API snapshot for PR #539–#548, current #518 comments, protection and open PR states; fixed first-trial report and current project rules reviewed.
Impact: Add a stage-4 design and evidence snapshot only; no queue activation, platform protection change, production task takeover, or workflow edit.
Refs: Dev issue #518; Documents 2026-10-14 merge queue trial report
Why: the progress note still listed Documents #102, RDM #365 and Dev
#540 as WIP and said the stage-8 review was under rectification, but all
three PRs merged on 2026-10-14 and the Dev task card is archived; the
note must state the terminal state instead of stale WIP/GATE caveats.
Evidence: merge SHAs 9062445 (Documents), 57d2214 (RDM), 11aa76a (Dev)
per the archived card .task/archive/feature-dhf-template-pipeline-plan.md
(Dev #542); this change is documentation-only and does not touch the
frozen r0.1 body or its recorded SHA256.
Impact: readers of the plan see the merged terminal state and the
remaining U1/U2-U6 exits; no requirement or scope change.
Refs: Dev task feature/dhf-plan-progress-note
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 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: 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
weichen
