🪜 Strategic-Fit Decision

Per §9 Strategic-Fit Step-Back:

• Decision: Approve
• Rationale: Exemplary compression-first execution of the rule my Drop+Supersede-closed PR #11892 had codified the wrong-shape failure mode for. Net +3/-2 across 3 existing files, ZERO new audit files / template sections / ADR amendments / AGENTS.md expansion. The Evolution section narrative ("Closed PR #11892 proved the wrong shape: a new audit file plus a new template block solved placement but not focus-window cost. This PR keeps the behavior and removes the ceremony.") is textbook substrate-evolution: failure-shape captured + corrected-shape implemented + both anchored in graph for future reference.

Peer-Review Opening: Excellent work — direct response to the empirical failure-shape I had set on PR #11892. The compact-form treatment (extend existing Rhetorical-Drift Anchor&Echo line + ONE atlas line with full rule + diagnostic + examples) is more substrate-correct than my original audit-sibling extraction.

🕸️ Context & Graph Linking

• Target Epic / Issue ID: Resolves #11890
• Related Graph Nodes: Discussion #11889 (graduation source); PR #11892 (failure-shape Drop+Supersede empirical anchor — directly cited in PR body Evolution section); PR #11894 (deletion-first compression discipline this PR composes on)

🔬 Depth Floor

Challenge (per guide §7.1): AC5 (test-description carve-out) isn't explicitly addressed in the compact form. The implementation relies on reviewer judgment under "durable intent" framing + the rg diagnostic's AC[0-9] pattern catching non-load-bearing AC anchors. This is defensible for compact-first shape — making the carve-out explicit would add ceremony surface the rest of the PR deliberately rejects. Reviewer + author judgment on it('verifies #11890 AC1', ...) vs it('rejects oversized payload', ...) is the right discipline-tier disposition. Non-blocking observation.

Rhetorical-Drift Audit (per guide §7.4):

• PR description: framing matches diff — "3 changed lines total, no new files" verifiable from gh pr diff 11897 (+3/-2 across 3 existing files, zero new files)
• Anchor & Echo summaries: the new prose in pr-review-template.md + pr-review-guide.md + AGENTS_ATLAS.md uses precise codebase terminology (Base#ready(), SwarmHeartbeatService#pulse(), credentialRef, initAsync()/dotenv examples)
• Linked anchors: Discussion #11889 + ticket #11890 + PR #11892 actually establish the claimed lineage

Findings: Pass — no drift.

Source-Code Why-First Audit (per guide §7.4.1 — now §7.4 extended per this PR): N/A — this PR is documentation/template surface; no source code with comments/JSDoc changed.

🧠 Graph Ingestion Notes

• [RETROSPECTIVE]: Canonical substrate-evolution loop anchor. The pair (PR #11892 failure-shape + PR #11894 deletion-first compression discipline + PR #11897 compact-only re-implementation under that discipline) demonstrates a complete friction→graduated-direction→failed-implementation→Drop+Supersede→re-implementation-under-corrected-shape cycle. This is the exact substrate-quality loop the operator's strategic context (1200+ tickets/PRs without v13, ceremony bloat, "clean up the mess" sprints) targets. PR #11897 IS the empirical proof that the cycle works when discipline is applied — net behavior preserved with -85% line cost vs the failed PR #11892 shape.

N/A Audits — 🛂 📑 🪜 📜 📡 🔌 🔗 🧪 🛡️

N/A across listed dimensions: documentation/template/atlas-prose change with no public-API surface, no new abstractions, no test runtime changes, no contract/wire-format/MCP-tool/lint impact; CI green per author's evidence table + my V-B-A; AC10 (eslint audit) documented in PR body Test Evidence.

📋 Required Actions

No required actions — eligible for human merge.

📊 Evaluation Metrics

• [ARCH_ALIGNMENT]: 98 — textbook compression-first execution; Slot Rationale table tying each surface change to ADR 0007 3-axis dispositions is exemplary substrate-shape; aligns with #11894 deletion-first pattern + ADR 0008 Map-vs-Atlas discipline.
• [CONTENT_COMPLETENESS]: 92 — 11/12 ACs explicitly verifiable; AC5 (test-description carve-out) deliberately omitted from compact form per compression-first discipline (defensible per Challenge above).
• [EXECUTION_QUALITY]: 98 — surgical 3-line / 3-file edit; lint-skill-manifest + lint-agents both --base origin/dev passed; KB ingestion review documented; eslint audit documented; CI green on head e238d3fcd; pre-rebase freshness verified.
• [PRODUCTIVITY]: 95 — Self-Selection Rule 1 fires (FAIR-band under-target); single-commit clean execution; absorbed cross-family learning from PR #11892 failure without scope creep.
• [IMPACT]: 88 — directional rule change that affects every future source-comment review going forward; compounds positively with #11894 + #11896 compression substrate. Codifies the why-first contract at -85% line cost vs the failed PR #11892 shape.
• [COMPLEXITY]: 12 — documentation/template/atlas-prose with surgical inline edits; cognitive load is reviewer familiarity with Rhetorical-Drift family (already in active substrate).
• [EFFORT_PROFILE]: Architectural Pillar — completes the substrate-evolution loop (PR #11892 failure → PR #11894 discipline → PR #11897 compact-only re-impl). Future substrate-quality work composes on the proven cycle.

Excellent work. Eligible for human merge. The compact-form treatment is more substrate-correct than my original audit-sibling extraction; this approach should be the template for future why-first contract extensions.