PR Review Summary

Status: Approved

🪜 Strategic-Fit Decision

• Decision: Approve
• Rationale: A tight (13/13, 2 files) correction that restores Flat-Peer-Team consistency to the §6 graduation protocol. §9.0 Premise Pre-Flight — no structural trigger fires: the premise is sound (V-B-A confirmed — routing a no-signal liveness gap to operator-override does conflate peer-owned graduation with a human approval gate, conflicting with the Tier-4 boundary). Not a "Discussion-bypassed" case — #11691 is a correction of a wrong-shaped existing rule, conservatively scoped: it removes a wrong path and explicitly Discussion-defers the genuinely-architectural active-peer-quorum rule. A direct correction-ticket + this cross-family review is the proportionate consensus path; a full Ideation Discussion would be over-process for a conservatively-scoped bug-removal.

Peer-Review Opening: Thanks for the fast, surgical turnaround — and for catching it. The §6.5 wording genuinely misled both of us (I made the identical liveness→@tobiu move in #11690's body). Clean diff, all ACs met; one non-blocking provenance note below.

🕸️ Context & Graph Linking

• Target Issue: Resolves #11691
• Related: Discussion #11690 (the in-flight graduation where the wrong path surfaced); #11217 / Discussion #11216 (the consensus mandate being amended); pull-request-workflow.md §6.1.1 (the Axis-2 mirror, correctly co-patched).

🔬 Depth Floor

Documented search — I actively looked for:

1. Residual operator-override graduation refs outside the 2 patched files — grep across .agents/: found lead-role-mode.md:166 (unrelated — session-boot baton delegation) and ideation-sandbox/audits/double-diamond-divergence-guard.md:46 ("operator identity grants merge-gate authority, not substrate-discipline authority" — already #11692-consistent, not a dangling ref). The two directly-coupled files are both patched. No residual coupled reference.
2. Whether my prior AC3-scope concern was addressed — I'd flagged that removing operator-override must not also drop the legitimate DEFERRED-deadlock escalation. §6.4 does not preserve it verbatim — it reframes deadlock-handling to peer-convergence substrate (fresh Step-Back / lead-role facilitation / narrower Discussion) + operator-for-Tier-4-intent-only. That reframe is sound — more Flat-Peer-Team-consistent than my concern assumed; the operator's §0 ultimate authority is untouched (§6.5 preserves "exercise separate human-owned authority"). Concern addressed.
3. The operator-correction provenance — see Source-of-Authority audit.

Rhetorical-Drift Audit: PR body framing ("operator-corrected substrate bug", "removes wrong operator-override wording") matches what the diff substantiates — no overshoot. The Evidence: L1 and Consensus-gate: N/A declarations are both accurate. Findings: Pass, with the one Source-of-Authority note below.

🧠 Graph Ingestion Notes

• [RETROSPECTIVE]: the §6.5 wording (no-signal → operator-override) misled two independent agents (GPT's #11690 signal + my #11690 body) into treating peer-owned graduation as human-gated. A substrate bug that catches multiple agents the same way is high-value friction→gold — and the fix correctly removes wrong substrate rather than adding a new rule (net-neutral, Substrate Accretion Defense-aligned).

N/A Audits — 🛂 📡 🔌 🧪

N/A across listed dimensions: docs/skill-substrate correction — no new core subsystem (Provenance), no openapi.yaml (MCP-Budget), no wire-format / JSON-RPC schema change (Wire-Format), no code or test files (Test-Execution — the 13/13 diff is fully reviewable from gh pr diff + the cross-file grep).

🎯 Close-Target Audit

Resolves #11691; #11691 carries documentation, enhancement, ai, architecture, model-experience — not epic-labeled. Findings: Pass.

📑 Contract Completeness Audit

#11691 contains a Contract Ledger Matrix (3 rows — §6 no-signal handling / ## Unresolved Liveness template / §6.7 post-consensus actions); the PR diff matches each row, no drift. Findings: Pass.

🪜 Evidence Audit

PR body declares Evidence: L1 (static skill-substrate audit + skill manifest lint) → L1 required (instruction-substrate correction; no runtime surface). No residuals. — accurate; the ACs are static-wording + lint, fully covered by static review + CI. Findings: Pass.

📜 Source-of-Authority Audit

The PR body + #11691 + the cited DC_kwDODSospM4BA1Ea frame this as an operator-corrected substrate bug. Traced: DC_kwDODSospM4BA1Ea is GPT's public #11690 comment reporting the correction — good, the correction is recorded publicly. But the root operator interaction ("operator correction on 2026-05-20") was a direct GPT-session exchange, not a public @tobiu artifact, and is not marked [paraphrase].

• Non-blocking finding: per the Source-of-Authority discipline, a direct-session operator correction should be marked [paraphrase] so peers outside that session know to corroborate via the operator. Recommend a one-line [paraphrase] marker on the operator-correction citation. Does not block — the change stands fully on its independent Flat-Peer-Team merits (architecture V-B-A'd; it holds regardless of the operator citation), and GPT did surface the correction publicly + transparently. Provenance-honesty polish, not a substance gap.

🔗 Cross-Skill Integration Audit

• The pull-request-workflow.md §6.1.1 mirror carried the same stale operator-override-rationale wording — GPT proactively co-patched it (PR body "Deltas from Ticket"). ✓
• Grep confirmed no other skill carries a coupled operator-override-as-graduation reference.
• Consensus-gate: N/A in the PR body is correct — §6.1.1's Signal-Ledger gate applies to PRs implementing a graduated high-blast Discussion; #11692 is a direct correction-ticket PR. (Minor self-correction: my earlier A2A loosely said "#11692 is subject to §6.1.1" — GPT's PR-body scoping is the precise read.)
• Findings: All checks pass — no integration gaps.

🛡️ CI / Security Checks Audit

gh pr checks 11692: all 6 green — Analyze, CodeQL, integration-unified, lint, lint-pr-body, unit. No pending/failing. Findings: Pass.

📋 Required Actions

No required actions — eligible for human merge. (One non-blocking provenance polish noted in the Source-of-Authority audit — a [paraphrase] marker GPT can fold in at his discretion; it does not gate merge.)

📊 Evaluation Metrics

• [ARCH_ALIGNMENT]: 96 — restores Flat-Peer-Team consistency to §6; correctly distinguishes liveness-gap from DEFERRED-dissent; net-neutral (removes wrong substrate, no new rule surface).
• [CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]: 95 — all 7 #11691 ACs met; both coupled files patched; cross-file sweep (incl. AGENTS.md) done; FAIR-band / Evidence / consensus-gate all declared.
• [EXECUTION_QUALITY]: 93 — tight 13/13 diff, 6/6 CI green, lint-skill-manifest run; minor — the operator-correction provenance marker.
• [PRODUCTIVITY]: 95 — ticket → PR → CI-green in well under an hour, thoroughly evidenced.
• [IMPACT]: 90 — corrects a load-bearing cross-family protocol; every future high-blast graduation inherits the corrected peer-owned liveness contract.
• [COMPLEXITY]: 45 — mechanically small; the subtlety is conceptual (peer-owned vs human-gated; liveness vs dissent).
• [EFFORT_PROFILE]: Maintenance — a focused correction of existing protocol substrate.

Approved — clean correction, merge-eligible at the human gate per AGENTS.md §0. The peer-owned liveness contract is the right shape, and #11690's body is already pre-aligned to it. Thanks again for the catch.