Claiming a needs-ruling issue dated it through the assigned timeline
event, silencing the 7-day escalation nudge at exactly the moment a
builder started working through it. The ruling block now reads
last_issue_comment_activity (D1); the reclaim clock keeps the assignment
(D2) because there the assignment IS the claim; post-merge hands its
evidence read to the ruling block instead of reading again (D6, D7); the
claimed branch reads both clocks at its top, before anything it posts.
LABELS.md and lib/ruling.sh now say what each surface's clock reads
(D4, D5). The #257-era order compositions move to the comments read —
the timeline is no longer an input the issue clocks take, and its
unreadability no longer holds unrelated writes hostage; that narrowing
is pinned rather than implied.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The section is re-assembled: main's merge base now carries two fragments
(188.md and 191.md), so 0.4.1 publishes with the door port it actually
ships, and neither fragment survives its own release.
drills/0.4.1.md takes main's two-run record, with run 1's disclosures
restored — the scratch repo it used, its candidate ref, and the ~8 minutes
it spent public to read job logs. A later success does not retire a
disclosed deviation.
The D3 guard loop passed the action path and its test path to derives in
one call. derive_labels emits scope:guards when either matches, so any one
of the six rows could be deleted with the case still green — three
assertions standing in for six rows. Split into one assertion per path.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Codex (!194#1588) is right on the text: #191's criterion is a drill that
runs all six probes with 1 and 5 passing, not two probes passing and four
recorded. Probe 2 (mislabeled ordinary PR) and probe 4 (a re-run of the
completed ceremony) were run on the same consumer, un-archived for them and
archived again after.
Probe 4 diverges in mechanism because Forgejo 8.0.3 has no run-rerun API:
the ceremony was re-run by reproducing its input rather than replaying the
run. The record says so, and says which assert refused.
#191's last acceptance criterion was a live drill against the MERGED tree,
not the candidate. Run against `fda5657`:
probe 1 merge door one release 0.4.1, changelog body, main re-armed
to 0.4.2-dev, both assets uploaded
probe 3 no label refused, nothing created
probe 5 tag door 0.5.0 published, main VERSION untouched
probe 6 bad tag refused, nothing created
The fixture carried an artifact hook this time, dropping `drill asset.tgz`
and `a&b.tgz`. Both survived under those exact names — the encoding fix
proven end to end, in the place it would have failed: after the tag exists,
mid-publish.
The record keeps run 1 (the failure at 9a229ee) beside run 2, because the
failure is why #191 exists and a record that quietly replaced it would be
the kind of tidy history this repo refuses.
Refs #191
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The red-head rule in Picking carried its own trigger definition at the
pre-slim head; the squeeze took it, leaving 'failing check' and 'red
check' classified only forward in the review round. At an all-cancelled
head that let parked shape 2 read satisfied on its face, parking a claim
the rule says is never parked (#163, #276).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
changelog.d/253.md landed on main after this branch's point with the
cite trailing the period — the crew#309 shape, the fifth fragment to
arrive with it since #262 measured two. The criterion is that
changelog.d/ is clean at the head, and the head CI reviews is the merge
with main, which is where this one surfaced.
Refs #262.
The self-guards job checks out the merge of this branch with main, so
changelog.d/253.md from #285 reaches changelog_fragment_problem there and
nowhere else; the branch alone is green. Merged rather than rebased
because the round's reviewers track head SHAs.
Refs #262.
awk runs END on the way out of an exit from a main rule, so the length
row printed mid-file was followed by the citation row it outranks — the
internal protocol line landing inside the human-facing excerpt. Found by
claude-bot and kimi-bot in #262's first round, independently and with the
same reproduction.
The guard is the reported flag the empty-heading walk in this same
predicate already uses. The fixtures are the axis 57.md could not reach:
its over-bound entry is last, so only END's flush can print. 58.md puts
one before another bullet, 59.md before a heading and after a misplaced
cite. With lib/changelog.sh alone reverted they red, which is what the
green suite was hiding.
Refs #262.
