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: 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>
weichen
