Why: Update the batch review after replacing the temporary profile interface with the immutable snapshot produced by Task 3.
Evidence: SELF contract test observed RED then GREEN; renderer full, race, vet, and diff checks pass at a08ae7ac81d4c648b350d890da97c91e64950769.
Impact: Updates the implementation review record only.
Refs: unified-document-renderer Tasks 2-3
Why: Give the first implementation batch a fixed human-review object with exact outputs, risks, review findings, fixes, evidence, and remaining boundaries.
Evidence: SELF relative-link and diff checks pass; the record cites exact RDM and renderer candidate SHAs and their fresh verification commands.
Impact: Adds an implementation review record only; no runtime, migration, deployment, or publication behavior changes.
Refs: unified-document-renderer Tasks 1-3
Why: Define the approved direction for one rule-driven Word renderer, all-template onboarding, human-readable traceability, and review-aware delivery before implementation starts.
Evidence: SELF documentation checks passed for relative links, balanced code fences, JSON parsing, manifest SHA256 coverage, and git diff whitespace.
Impact: Adds a 12-document review set and immutable review manifest; no runtime code, migration, deployment, or published rule changes.
Refs: feature/rdm-two-trees-latest-templates
Why: The living proposal still said the human confirmation write path was blocked after the local chain had been implemented.
Evidence: Backend a4d6404, RDM 528dd0c, and Dev SELF receipt edb81a90 are cited in the new progress record.
Impact: The status now separates implemented, verified, merged, and deployed. Nothing is merged or deployed.
Refs: W4b human confirmation design r1
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Why: The proposal main record must reflect that trusted human confirmation lacks a public Backend proof and remains blocked pending review.
Evidence: Candidate design bbcff18 and exact file SHA256 are linked; W3 RED and Backend source gap remain separate from phase acceptance.
Impact: Updates status only, preserving the previously approved stage-four and stage-five objects.
Refs: Stage6 W4b design adjustment candidate r1; TT-D02/D03
Why: The pinned Backend extension exposes no trusted one-time HITL proof for RDM structure confirmation.
Evidence: Fixed RDM/Backend source identities, W3 RED receipt, and Dev READY precheck are cited; no W4b confirmation write was run.
Impact: Adds a review-only X3 verifier and RDM atomic-consumption design with permission, recovery, audit and replay checks.
Refs: Stage4 design r1 section 5.2; Stage5 W4; TT-D02/D03/T04
Why: The user approved the fixed TT-N03 and TT-R01 stage-five amendment for local stage-six implementation.
Evidence: User approval call_497a8a4c28bd4231a2cfd63d84375f2a for plan SHA256 10b91e3489ac8145eafec73759a019cb6d3b73fd50e7c74563bbbb6d18e5462c.
Impact: Update the current approval record without changing the approved plan bytes or permitting live migration, tag publication, or deployment.
Refs: TT-N03, TT-R01; Dev task card
Why: The approved stage-four design needs reviewable ownership, sequencing, and tests before new X3 product code can start.
Evidence: TT-N03 and TT-R01 stage-three approval; stage-four approval call_a6853c4232f34285a6cbae19dfbeeec5; document checker SELF receipt f4a4cdde2d3ad9b250742da764455a1304e1e26f07270da4f0d37ad6ed8b6c7e.
Impact: Record the stage-five amendment for human review; keep the original 28-item plan and approved implementation active.
Refs: TT-N03, TT-R01; work observation and risk stage-five amendment r1
Why: The authoritative target added DHF and manual merge queue records while this task saved approved two-tree amendments.
Evidence: origin/main=19aa34efe6482b78d779bab573b5397e6d2088b2 includes the Dev incoming gitlink 46506aec34.
Impact: Keep both documentation histories; approved two-tree object bytes remain intact.
Refs: Dev task-sync and stage 4 X3 design
Why: The approved work-source requirements need a governed path from real messages, retrieved material, and analysis into project evidence and timely clarification.
Evidence: Stage-three amendment SHA256 552a9fdea996bb547c185949b5072a51efafdce1339a9eaafd49537dfedd91b4 and user approval call_b517d0f07af54aa188a01ddb100485b9; independent Backend and RDM scoped design reviews closed the identified privacy, timing, and atomicity gaps; document hashes and links checked.
Impact: Save an unapproved stage-four design only; no new public interface, migration, model run, or product behavior.
Refs: TT-N03, TT-R01; work observation and risk design r1
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 user approved adding source processing and timely ambiguity clarification to the goal.
Evidence: Stage-two amendment SHA256 2627342f7d6e94137d5e7418d995ce57218093f6512f67fb7b221f01067da04d and chat approval call_aea78d4156fe4ca89f4b9b6883b2b23f; document hashes and 158 local links checked.
Impact: Add two unapproved stage-three requirement IDs without changing the original 28 or authorizing the public observation implementation.
Refs: TT-N03 and TT-R01; stage 3 amendment r1
Why: The expanded user requirement needs explicit normal-work source intake and timely clarification criteria.
Evidence: Original .tmp data-flow and dialog sources were matched by SHA; fixed Backend public surfaces and current requirements were checked; local links and approved document hashes passed.
Impact: Add an unapproved stage-two scope evaluation and two candidate requirement IDs; prior approvals and product code remain untouched.
Refs: TT-N01, TT-G03, proposed TT-N03 and TT-R01; stage 2 amendment r1
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: Keep the verified RDM candidate and independent replay available beyond temporary reviewer files.
Evidence: Report, original receipt, and replay script were copied byte for byte; the archive and exact pins were validated before focused race replay.
Impact: Documents only; the review covers P2, while time repair and performance acceptance remain separate gates.
Refs: RDM 57a8d7caedf72d9be4bdca179ae2a93e456ba009; stage 6 W4a
Why: RDM PR 365 is now merged and the unique U1 content contract is available for W3.
Evidence: Fresh remote main and API metadata agree on 57d2214feb0ac4a534fa58623fff7d02f93a860a; 44 assets remain needs-review in the unchanged catalog.
Impact: Clear the U1 merge prerequisite while retaining read-isolation, time repair, and template publication gates.
Refs: stage 6 W1, W3, W4a; dependency receipt dc68957a
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.
weichen
