P1-S3 — Consume A's released output

[MianliWang]

P1-S3 — Consume A's released output

Goal

Consume the artifact A publishes when it completes Gate 3. C is the hard-edge control: a Gate 3 predecessor is the one case ADR-0007 mirrors into a native blocked-by edge, because a Slice closes only at Gate 3.

Context

• Why now: C is the other half of the ADR-0007 contrast and the only Slice in the sample that carries a native dependency.
• Non-goals: No work before A closes; no metadata-only interpretation of this edge.
• Related: Phase P1 = Phase P1 — Sample hierarchy and dependency encoding gatebraid#3 · Stage S1 = Stage S1 — Control-plane validation gatebraid#2

Acceptance

• C's metadata block carries exactly one depends_on entry with requires_gate: 3.
• A verification read confirms C has exactly one native dependency and it is A.

Gate evidence

gatebraid-metadata

schema: gatebraid/slice@1
slice_id: P1-S3
stage: S1
phase: P1
workflow_profile: classic
environment: windows
risk: low
depends_on:
  - issue: MianliWang/gatebraid-scratch#2
    requires_gate: 3
    reason: "C consumes A's released output, so this is a Gate 3 dependency and therefore also a native blocked-by edge (ADR-0007)."
write_domains: ["bin/", "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/"]
resource_locks: []
repair_limit: 2
consult_first: false
parallel_mode: safe-single-writer

[mianliwang492-source]

Handoff — P1-S3 · Gate 0 · passed

Slice C's authority and baseline are verified. All six read-only actions pass: repository identity and remote, plan baseline cfa0385816c4099ea2f6c21d05e1191a41792feb, a clean working tree, Environment = windows matching the actual host, tool versions recorded, and the slice metadata valid against gatebraid/slice@1. Evidence is committed at 3a17390 on main. Gate = G0 passed, Workflow → Gate 1 — Planning.

C is the first slice whose startability was computed from published artifacts rather than derived by hand: A's gatebraid-snapshot.py produced the Project state document and B's gatebraid-frontier.py decided the predicate over it. The verdict is startable = true, because C's one blocked_by edge resolves to a CLOSED blocker — B's property (i) meeting real data for the first time. An implementation keyed on edge existence rather than blocker state would have reported C blocked forever. requires_gate: 3 is satisfied exactly: A stands at Gate = G3 passed, the top of the ladder.

That pipeline does not run as published, and Gate 0 records it rather than working around it. A's producer writes json.dump(..., sys.stdout, ensure_ascii=False), so non-ASCII is encoded by the process ANSI codepage — cp936 here — while B's consumer reads strict UTF-8. It fails on the U+2014 in the Workflow option name Gate 0 — Verifying, the character a standing hard rule mandates in every Workflow value. PYTHONIOENCODING=utf-8 makes the same pipeline succeed, and that substitution is stated in the evidence rather than left implicit. Gate 0 does not fail on this — its six actions do not include running that pipeline, and the verdict is independently confirmed by direct dependency reads. Friction #60. What to do about it is Gate 1's to plan and the operator's to approve.

schema: gatebraid/handoff@1
slice_id: P1-S3
gate: 0
workflow_to: "Gate 1 — Planning"
changed_files: []
verification:
  - command: "git remote -v; gh repo view MianliWang/gatebraid-scratch --json nameWithOwner,id,isPrivate,defaultBranchRef"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate0.md#verification-record"
  - command: "git rev-parse main; git ls-remote origin refs/heads/main"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate0.md#verification-record"
  - command: "git status --porcelain"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate0.md#verification-record"
  - command: "Project Environment field vs uname -srm and the installed toolchain"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate0.md#verification-record"
  - command: "git --version; gh --version; python --version; C:/Python312/python.exe --version; codex --version"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate0.md#verification-record"
  - command: "slice metadata validated against gatebraid/slice@1 - loader C:/Python312/python.exe 3.12.2, PyYAML 6.0.2, jsonschema 4.23.0"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate0.md#verification-record"
  - command: "frontier verdict: bin/gatebraid-snapshot.py | bin/gatebraid-frontier.py --strict"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate0.md#verification-record"
residual_risk:
  - "Push-actor anomaly at 2026-08-06T04:15:24Z: the gh active account drifted mid-batch and commit 3a173908 - this gate's own evidence - was PUSHED under the operator's account MianliWang. The commit is authored and committed by mianliwang492-source, so git history is correctly attributed; only the transport actor is wrong. ADR-0022 §4 stop was taken, and the executor did not re-normalize until the operator directed it. Friction #61."
  - "Project field writes inside the same window - Gate 0's entry Executor and Workflow - were almost certainly made under the operator's token. The VALUES are correct and were verified by read-back; the WRITER is not recoverable, because no Project field records who wrote it. Stated rather than glossed."
  - "Drift cause located to a credible candidate: another agent was running on this host against other projects during the window, and gh's credential store has one global active slot per user, so a co-resident process's own gh login or switch flips this executor's surface (a). R1 forensics, taken before any re-normalization and as file METADATA ONLY - hosts.yml mtime 2026-08-06T04:11:50Z, which falls between the last correct push at 04:07:19Z and the drifted push at 04:15:24Z. The contents of hosts.yml were never read. That agent has been stopped and no concurrent gh writer coexists for the remainder of Batch I."
  - "A's published output and B's published program do not interoperate on this host (friction #60). Gate 1 must decide whether that is C's scope or a separate slice; it is not decided at Gate 0."
decisions:
  - "The frontier verdict was obtained with PYTHONIOENCODING=utf-8 and the substitution is disclosed in the evidence, rather than the run being presented as the artifacts shipping correctly."
  - "Gate 0 does not fail on friction #60: its six actions do not include running that pipeline, and the verdict is independently confirmed by direct reads of dependencies/blocked_by, dependencies/blocking and A's current Gate field."
  - "write_domains is empty in the slice body and that is not a defect - the slice template captured authoring-time intent. Gate 1 sets the exact allowlist and freezes its hash; Gate 2's R1 tests against that frozen value and never against the body."
  - "Identity verification is now a separate blocking step and is re-run immediately before every push, never chained into the committing command (friction #61's remedy, in force from this handoff onward)."
done:
  - "All six Gate 0 actions verified read-only; no remediation of any kind was performed or needed"
  - "Frontier verdict computed from published artifacts: C startable, blocker #2 CLOSED, undecidable_total 0"
  - "Slice metadata VALID against gatebraid/slice@1, with the validating loader named"
  - "Evidence committed as 3a17390 on main; gate-run@1 block validates clean"
  - "Friction #59, #60, #61 recorded and classified at write time"
next:
  - "Gate 1: read-only planning. Decide C's smallest satisfying implementation of what #4's body defines, set the exact write_domains, and name a declared test-plan command for EACH acceptance criterion item by item - the checklist now fails where Gate 2's R2 would (friction #48, landed this batch at 55fcca4)."
  - "Gate 1 must take a position on friction #60: whether consuming A's released output means fixing the encoding, working within it, or declaring it out of scope for C."
  - "Then stop at Needs Plan Approval. The operator's Plan Approval on #4 is the only door to Gate 2."
open_questions:
  - "May a slice declare a dependency on another slice's interface and verify it entirely against fixtures it authored itself? B did exactly that, legally, and the interop gap at #60 survived two independent reviews because neither side was ever run against the other. If the answer is no, that is a change to gate-1-contract.md or the exit checklist - raised here, deliberately not decided at Gate 0."

[mianliwang492-source]

Handoff — P1-S3 · Gate 1 · needs approval

Slice C's plan and allowlist are frozen. Evidence is committed at b7ce3f0 on main. Gate = G1 passed, Workflow → Needs Plan Approval, Next Approval = Plan Approval (G1→G2), needs-human on. This gate wrote no code and created no branch — bin/gatebraid-ready.py does not exist yet, by contract.

What C builds: the artefact B was forbidden to be. B's frozen negative criterion barred it from importing or executing A's scripts — that is exactly what made B's dependency a soft edge on A's Gate 1 interface. C is the hard edge: it needs A's released output, which does not exist until A closes at Gate 3, and it therefore carries the sample's only native blocked-by edge. bin/gatebraid-ready.py runs A's gatebraid-snapshot.py as a subprocess, feeds the document to B's gatebraid-frontier.py, and passes the verdict through — consuming both published artefacts and modifying neither.

The position taken on friction #60, which is the one judgement in this plan worth your attention. A's producer and B's consumer do not interoperate on this host: the producer encodes stdout in the ANSI codepage while the consumer reads strict UTF-8, and they break on the U+2014 that a hard rule mandates in every Workflow value. C pins the child's encoding and verifies the result, and never guesses — a consumer that guesses turns a loud failure into silent corruption. C does not edit A's script. That root fix would widen C into a completed slice's published artefact, which #4's body does not define and which is your scope call rather than this gate's. The producer defect therefore remains open after C ships, named in the risk notes rather than quietly closed by C's workaround. If you would rather C fix the producer instead, that changes the plan and this approval should not be given as written.

Values for templates/plan-approval.md — full, for mechanical copy (friction #37: compare full values, never prefixes):

Slice issue      : MianliWang/gatebraid-scratch#4
plan_hash        : a19a8784c61a4ed3897d129a117e297dac3831460ef9ed88ae5348f328e195d7
allowlist_hash   : ba2eda5977eac71f883a635bd4efc89b7f8b4dde247c17408cec8dc1ba00c981
write_domains    : bin/  ·  docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/
base branch      : main
plan baseline X  : cfa0385816c4099ea2f6c21d05e1191a41792feb
gate1 evidence   : b7ce3f0  (full: see the repository; base_sha recorded in the block is 3a1739085fc10bfb0966b1932e7c4ca4fd1636a7)

First slice to run the exit checklist as amended this batch. Each acceptance criterion maps to a declared test-plan command, named item by item (55fcca4, friction #48) — criterion 1 → command 8, criterion 2 → command 9, and both were run in full before the freeze. The overlay item is recorded n/a with the gate-run check none_configured, because no overlay document exists in projects/ (5319b94, friction #54) — the first use of that value at Gate 1, and the first time this project has recorded "there is nothing here to check" instead of ticking a box against an invented gloss.

schema: gatebraid/handoff@1
slice_id: P1-S3
gate: 1
workflow_to: "Needs Plan Approval"
changed_files: []
verification:
  - command: "six dry-runs on environment=windows before the freeze"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate1.md#dry-run-record-contract-action-4"
  - command: "declared command 8 (acceptance criterion 1) run IN FULL against the live issue"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate1.md#dry-run-record-contract-action-4"
  - command: "declared command 9 (acceptance criterion 2) run IN FULL - asserts count, blocker number, blocker repository, and the other direction"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate1.md#dry-run-record-contract-action-4"
  - command: "dependencies re-checked at freeze: blocked_by 1 (#2, closed), blocking 0, predecessor Gate = G3 passed"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate1.md#dependencies-re-checked-at-freeze"
  - command: "search projects/ for a prohibited-operations overlay document"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: none_configured
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate1.md#exit-checklist"
  - command: "gatebraid-gate1-exit-checklist, every item evidence-backed"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate1.md#exit-checklist"
  - command: "gatebraid/gate-run@1 validation of the gate1 metadata block - loader C:/Python312/python.exe 3.12.2, PyYAML 6.0.2, jsonschema 4.23.0"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate1.md#gatebraid-metadata"
residual_risk:
  - "Friction #60 is NOT closed by this plan. C pins and verifies the child's encoding; A's producer still writes its stdout in the process ANSI codepage, so any other consumer reading strict UTF-8 will still fail against it on a non-UTF-8 host. The root fix is deliberately out of C's scope and needs its own decision."
  - "The two failure paths that matter most - producer failed, versus producer output undecodable - are distinguished only by exit code 10 versus 11. A caller that checks merely non-zero learns nothing, and the frontier's own codes 2 and 3 are reused deliberately rather than renumbered. This is a design choice that trades a flat error space for a caller obligation, and it is stated so a reviewer can disagree with it."
  - "--snapshot-command exists so the producer-failure and decode-guard paths can be RUN rather than asserted. It also means the program will execute an arbitrary command it is handed. It is a developer-facing test seam on a read-only local tool, not an input surface, but it is a seam and is named as one."
  - "Push-actor verification after this gate's own push could not be completed: GitHub's events API had not yet surfaced the push when queried. The pre-push identity guard passed, and GitHub independently attributes commit b7ce3f0 to mianliwang492-source as both author and committer. Stated rather than claimed as verified (friction #61)."
decisions:
  - "C consumes A's and B's published artefacts and modifies neither. The negative criterion checks this byte-for-byte by blob hash, not by inspection."
  - "On friction #60: pin the child's encoding, verify the decode, never guess; do not edit A's script. Alternative considered and rejected in the frozen plan, with the reason recorded."
  - "--snapshot-command is added for one stated reason: without it two declared failure paths could only be asserted, and an item satisfiable by reading is not evidence-backed."
  - "Exit codes 2 and 3 reuse the frontier's own values so a caller already reading B's codes is not surprised; 10 and 11 sit outside B's range so they cannot be mistaken for a verdict."
  - "The overlay checklist item is n/a and the gate-run check is none_configured - recorded as a finding, not ticked as a pass."
  - "consult_first stays false, considered rather than inherited: the encoding question is a scope judgement for the operator, not a technical question for Codex."
done:
  - "Plan frozen; approach, decomposition into T1/T2, exit algebra, risk notes and rollback note written"
  - "Allowlist frozen at two entries: bin/ and docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/"
  - "Both hashes computed by the recorded hash_commands run as written, and plan_hash re-derived identically after the metadata block was filled in"
  - "Six dry-runs executed; dry-run 2 FAILED first - a literal em dash did not survive four quoting layers and the stub emitted zero bytes, so the guard would have appeared to pass while testing nothing - rebuilt with chr(0x2014) and it now reproduces the exact byte pair that broke the real pipeline"
  - "Evidence committed as b7ce3f0 on main; gate-run@1 block validates clean"
next:
  - "OPERATOR: post the Plan Approval (G1->G2) on this issue as MianliWang, filled from templates/plan-approval.md with the full values above. It is the only door to Gate 2 and no executor may write it."
  - "Before approving, decide the friction #60 question: is pinning-and-verifying the right scope for C, or should C fix A's producer? The plan as frozen does the former."
  - "On approval, Gate 2 takes the Writer Lease, re-reads the baseline, cuts slice/P1-S3 from the current head, and implements strictly inside the frozen allowlist."
open_questions:
  - "May a slice modify an earlier, completed slice's published artefact when consuming it reveals a defect? C says no and routes around it. If the answer is yes, C's plan is the wrong shape and #60 should be fixed here rather than deferred."
  - "May a slice declare a dependency on another slice's interface and verify it entirely against fixtures it authored itself? B did exactly that, legally, and #60 survived two independent reviews because neither side was ever run against the other. Raised at Gate 0, still open, and not decidable inside this slice."

[MianliWang]

Plan Approval (G1→G2) — P1-S3

An approval missing a required field, self-conflicting, or ambiguous is
invalid. The gate stops as if none existed (ADR-0018 §3a). It is corrected by
posting a new approval that supersedes this one, cited by comment URL — never
by the executor deciding which text is in force.

Valid only when authored by the operator's personal account (MianliWang).
An approval from any other account — the executor's machine account included —
is invalid as if absent, and the gate records the observed author (ADR-0020 §4).

Rules relied on

Cited by number and by the commit in which that version stands, so the text
being relied on is unambiguous. Terms do not restate contract rules (ADR-0018 §3)
— a restatement is a second copy that drifts.

Rule	Version (commit SHA in MianliWang/gatebraid)
protocols/gate-2-contract.md	29559b9d36b1106ae4a1e90a9c0dbbe975f841c5
ADR-0011 (gate contract corrections)	477ebb73ea631a8d61240a8c2e4c250f23c5812b
ADR-0012 (slice closure)	3a96b712d8179a2b272db6511ece3ce2fa676992
ADR-0018 (prohibitions and approvals discipline)	71f2b81dadd8df143b0dd20c0dec1d9e69d8300c

Objects of this authorisation

Only the things this approval is about. No general statements.

• Slice issue: MianliWang/gatebraid-scratch#4
• plan_hash: a19a8784c61a4ed3897d129a117e297dac3831460ef9ed88ae5348f328e195d7
• allowlist_hash: ba2eda5977eac71f883a635bd4efc89b7f8b4dde247c17408cec8dc1ba00c981
• write_domains, exactly: bin/ · docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/
• Base branch the work targets: main

This approval is bound to those two hashes. If either changes, it lapses and
Gate 2 stops.

Overrides

Any departure from a cited rule goes here as a structured entry, never as prose
elsewhere that happens to differ. Leave as none if there are none.

override: none

Scope

• This authorises Gate 2 for this slice only. It does not authorise publication
  — that is Gate 3 and needs its own approval.
• Commits on Active Branch only. No push, no pull request, no merge.

— Mianli Wang, operator · 2026-08-06

[mianliwang492-source]

Human Diagnosis — Gate 2 (P1-S3)

Posted by the operator at the unified repair sequence's terminal state
(Workflow = Human Diagnosis Required). Authored with the coordinator; this
comment is the human diagnosis the sequence requires, and it directs the path
below.

Diagnosis. The implementation is not in question: nine declared commands
green across three reviews, bin/gatebraid-ready.py never red and untouched
by both repairs, blob 70450abb == commit fe17a0c (hash-verified in
reviews 2 and 3). What failed R3 three times is the evidence file's prose
about itself, with one root cause: claims written from recall instead of
from measurement — a byte count from a text-mode reader (1471 vs 1531);
repairs that added new universal assertions instead of replacing assertions
with measurements; an unmarked 1-of-50 / 1-of-166 excerpt recommitted inside
the section correcting elisions; "an empty directory" said of a path holding
42 files. Each repair increased the claim surface; every added claim was
falsifiable and false.

Ruling on the sequence deviation (friction #69). The skipped Codex
consult does not void this stop: the sequence is exhausted in fact, and
inserting a consult now would launder a third repair. #69 stands as recorded.
The consult's function — independent eyes before further repair — is
discharged, at higher authority, by this diagnosis.

Directed remediation — the human-directed outcome of HDR, not a third
executor repair. One rewrite of gate2.md under these rules, then one full
re-review:

1. Delete, don't defend. Every statement about the file itself, and every
   universal claim, that is not the verbatim output of a recorded command is
   removed — the three review-3 findings included, resolved by deletion or by
   replacement with command + output.
2. Claims are outputs. A count is the recorded output of the counting
   command, byte counts from a byte-mode instrument, the instrument named. A
   "the only remaining …" claim appears only as the search command plus its
   verbatim result — or not at all.
3. Every excerpt marks its elision, shown/total.
4. No other change. fe17a0c, the frozen plan, plan_hash and
   allowlist_hash are untouched.
5. Review 4: the independent read-only reviewer re-runs R1–R5 in full.
   Pass → Gate 2 exit per contract. Fail → the slice takes an ADR-0013
   disposition; there is no fifth review.

Gate 1 completion (friction #65). Announced then done, as Gate 1's own
outstanding exit obligation: write the frozen write_domains (bin/ ·
docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/) into #4's body exactly as gate1.md
records them. Not a Gate 2 action and not a widening.

Rules relied on: protocols/gate-2-contract.md @
29559b9d36b1106ae4a1e90a9c0dbbe975f841c5 (unified repair sequence, R1–R5);
ADR-0013 (failure dispositions); ADR-0011 §5.

— Mianli Wang, operator · 2026-08-07

[MianliWang]

Human Diagnosis — Gate 2 (P1-S3)
Posted by the operator at the unified repair sequence's terminal state
(Workflow = Human Diagnosis Required). Authored with the coordinator; this
comment is the human diagnosis the sequence requires, and it directs the path
below.

Diagnosis. The implementation is not in question: nine declared commands
green across three reviews, bin/gatebraid-ready.py never red and untouched
by both repairs, blob 70450abb == commit fe17a0c (hash-verified in
reviews 2 and 3). What failed R3 three times is the evidence file's prose
about itself, with one root cause: claims written from recall instead of
from measurement — a byte count from a text-mode reader (1471 vs 1531);
repairs that added new universal assertions instead of replacing assertions
with measurements; an unmarked 1-of-50 / 1-of-166 excerpt recommitted inside
the section correcting elisions; "an empty directory" said of a path holding
42 files. Each repair increased the claim surface; every added claim was
falsifiable and false.

Ruling on the sequence deviation (friction #69). The skipped Codex
consult does not void this stop: the sequence is exhausted in fact, and
inserting a consult now would launder a third repair. #69 stands as recorded.
The consult's function — independent eyes before further repair — is
discharged, at higher authority, by this diagnosis.

Directed remediation — the human-directed outcome of HDR, not a third
executor repair. One rewrite of gate2.md under these rules, then one full
re-review:

Delete, don't defend. Every statement about the file itself, and every
universal claim, that is not the verbatim output of a recorded command is
removed — the three review-3 findings included, resolved by deletion or by
replacement with command + output.
Claims are outputs. A count is the recorded output of the counting
command, byte counts from a byte-mode instrument, the instrument named. A
"the only remaining …" claim appears only as the search command plus its
verbatim result — or not at all.
Every excerpt marks its elision, shown/total.
No other change. fe17a0c, the frozen plan, plan_hash and
allowlist_hash are untouched.
Review 4: the independent read-only reviewer re-runs R1–R5 in full.
Pass → Gate 2 exit per contract. Fail → the slice takes an ADR-0013
disposition; there is no fifth review.
Gate 1 completion (friction #65). Announced then done, as Gate 1's own
outstanding exit obligation: write the frozen write_domains (bin/ ·
docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/) into #4's body exactly as gate1.md
records them. Not a Gate 2 action and not a widening.

Rules relied on: protocols/gate-2-contract.md @
29559b9d36b1106ae4a1e90a9c0dbbe975f841c5 (unified repair sequence, R1–R5);
ADR-0013 (failure dispositions); ADR-0011 §5.

— Mianli Wang, operator · 2026-08-07

[MianliWang]

Human Diagnosis — disposition (P1-S3, Gate 2)

Review 4: R1/R2/R4/R5 pass, R3 fail. Per the prior Human Diagnosis on this
issue ("Fail → ADR-0013 disposition; there is no fifth review") and ADR-0013
extended to Gate 2 by its own reopening condition: disposition = abort.

The implementation was never published. The false claim at line 493 remains
uncorrected in the retained work, with the two commands that falsify it
directly beneath — ADR-0013's decidable branch, "No remediation, ever",
applies to the record as it stands. This attempt's measurements stand in
full: the metric unit is gate exits attempted (convergence-metrics §2). A
successor slice re-runs the same scope in a later batch, after the contract
fixes this attempt surfaced (#67, the #70-class self-narrative ban, #72,
#73) land.

Execute ADR-0013's abort mechanics as written, announcing them before
applying. Where its Gate 0-era text is silent for a Gate 2 abort (branch,
labels), the defaults are: slice/P1-S3 retained local and unpushed;
nothing published; each silence recorded as a friction entry. Where ADR-0013
and spec §1 conflict, ADR-0013 governs per the prior Human Diagnosis, and
the conflict is recorded (#72's class).

Rules relied on: ADR-0013; the Human Diagnosis comment above;
protocols/gate-2-contract.md @ 29559b9d36b1106ae4a1e90a9c0dbbe975f841c5.

— Mianli Wang, operator · 2026-08-07

[mianliwang492-source]

Handoff — P1-S3 · Gate 2 · ABORTED per Human Diagnosis disposition

Disposition abort, comment 5221166545 (author MianliWang, verified under ADR-0020 §4). Gate 2 never exited; Gate stays G1 passed. Nothing was published. bin/gatebraid-ready.py exists only on the local branch slice/P1-S3 at 344ae09, retained and not pushed, not deleted.

The implementation was never in question. Nine declared test-plan commands green; four independent reviews passed R1, R2, R4 and R5 every time; every declared command reproduced byte-for-byte under CRLF-normalised diff in review 4. bin/gatebraid-ready.py is blob 70450abb at fe17a0c and in the working tree — never red, and touched by neither repair nor the directed rewrite. What failed R3, four times, was prose the evidence file wrote about itself.

This issue stays OPEN. ADR-0013 is silent on closure; spec §2 line 50 and ADR-0012 are not — a Slice is closed iff G3 passed, because closure is what releases native blocked-by dependents. An aborted slice that never reached Gate 3 must not be closed.

ADR-0013 has no abort branch. The token occurs once in the whole committed tree, in templates/gatebraid-correct-course.md, meaning "abort to re-planning". Its nearest machinery (the decidable disposition) was applied, and every silence is recorded as a friction entry rather than filled by invention.

schema: gatebraid/handoff@1
slice_id: P1-S3
gate: 2
workflow_to: "Human Diagnosis Required"
changed_files: []
verification:
  - command: "ADR-0020 §4 author check on the disposition comment 5221166545"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "https://github.com/MianliWang/gatebraid-scratch/issues/4#issuecomment-5221166545"
  - command: "declared test-plan commands 1-9, each printed with its output"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate2.md#verification-outputs"
  - command: "review 4 R1/R2/R4/R5"
    owner: Claude Read-Only Team
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate2.md#review-4--failed-r3"
  - command: "review 4 R3 - evidence is evidence"
    owner: Claude Read-Only Team
    result: fail
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate2.md#review-4--failed-r3"
  - command: "gatebraid/gate-run@1 validation of the gate2 metadata block - loader C:/Python312/python.exe 3.12.2, PyYAML 6.0.2, jsonschema 4.23.0, format_checker enabled"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate2.md#gatebraid-metadata"
  - command: "gate-1 exit obligation completed: write_domains written back to this issue body"
    owner: Claude Lead
    result: pass
    evidence_ref: "docs/evidence/gatebraid/P1-S3/gate2.md#gate-1-completion--write_domains-written-back-to-4"
residual_risk:
  - "The false claim at gate2.md line 493 is left uncorrected in the retained work, per ADR-0013's decidable branch ('No remediation, ever') and the operator's disposition. The two commands that falsify it sit directly beneath it."
  - "ADR-0013 has no abort disposition. Four silences were filled by the operator's stated defaults or by the nearest binding rule, each recorded as a friction entry: no abort branch, no Workflow option expressing an aborted slice, closure unspecified, branch and Writer Lease disposition unspecified."
  - "needs-human is OFF while Workflow = Human Diagnosis Required. Spec §1 couples the label to that state; ADR-0013's decidable branch says not to set it. ADR-0013 governs per the Human Diagnosis. Friction #72."
  - "The review-4 agent disclosed writing a file, breaching the read-only mandate the contract states it holds by capability. Blast radius is one count in the evidence file, disclosed. Friction #73."
  - "friction #60 is NOT closed. A's producer still encodes stdout in the process ANSI codepage. C contained it rather than fixing it, and C is aborted, so the containment is unpublished too. The defect is exactly where Gate 0 found it."
decisions:
  - "Issue stays open: spec §2 line 50 and ADR-0012 make closure iff G3 passed."
  - "Writer Lease released: ADR-0003 makes lease occupancy a blocking condition, and the disposition contemplates a successor slice."
  - "Active Branch and Base SHA retained: they record what was attempted and are evidence, not operational state."
  - "Workflow left unchanged: none of the 13 options expresses an aborted slice, and every alternative asserts something false."
done:
  - "Gate 1's outstanding exit obligation completed under the Human Diagnosis: write_domains written back to this issue body, one line, read-back verified"
  - "gate2.md rewritten once under the Human Diagnosis rules; gate-run@1 VALID with format_checker enabled"
  - "Abort mechanics applied and announced beforehand; every silence recorded"
next:
  - "OPERATOR: a successor slice re-runs this scope in a later batch, after the contract fixes this attempt surfaced land - #67 (under-matching proxies), the #70-class self-narrative ban, #72 (ADR-0013 vs spec §1 label coupling), #73 (reviewer write capability)."
  - "Nothing is queued for an executor on this issue. Batch J is issued by the coordinator."
open_questions:
  - "May a slice modify an earlier, completed slice's published artefact when consuming it reveals a defect? Raised at Gate 0 of this slice, never decided, and now carried into the successor along with friction #60."
  - "May a slice declare a dependency on another slice's interface and verify it entirely against fixtures it authored itself? B did exactly that, legally, and #60 survived two independent reviews because neither side was ever run against the other."