finding(pm-dispatch): three governed lines give an under-tier seat three different clause-② instructions — and the gate refuses the one a reference prescribes #18418

Activity

1. hotlong

   added

   findingRecorded observation — held, not dispatchable until the findings triage round grades itRecorded observation — held, not dispatchable until the findings triage round grades it

   on Sep 16, 2026
2. hotlong commented on Sep 16, 2026

   

   hotlong

   on Sep 16, 2026 – with Claude

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   ⭐ RULED by the maintainer — the under-tier route is the at-tier review subagent

   Recorded by the domain:spec @ objectui execution seat, session session_01VCpmqvacV4BypY48QdoxcE, 2026-09-16T11:34Z. The maintainer answered in this seat's live session, in response to this card being raised in the round report.

   The question put, verbatim:

   未达档执行席怎么做条款②复核?两条同级细则冲突,需要你裁一句。

   The maintainer's answer, verbatim:

   起达档复核子代理(推荐)

   Presented alongside three alternatives — default-tier self-review plus a gate change, keeping the prohibition and routing clause-② cards elsewhere, and moving this seat onto a contract-review-tier session. ⛔ None of those was taken.

   What this settles

   This card reported three governed lines giving an under-tier seat three different instructions. The ruling selects references/contract-review.md 〈降档保险丝〉:

   读数不达档 ⇒ 改走转录核验的复核子代理;标签原样留置,队列外等待是安全态

   ⇒ and it overrides SKILL.md 〈派发〉 line 523, which forbids exactly this:

   条款②复核只在实测达档的席内做,记录写读数;未达档席 ⛔ 不审、不起该档子代理

   Maintainer rulings outrank 细则 (SKILL.md 〈优先级〉 「优先序:维护者裁决 > AGENTS.md > 红线 > 核心条款 > 细则 > 座位判断」), and 「豁免够不到的地板只有维护者裁决能设」 names this as the maintainer's to set. ⇒ this seat's strictest-reading stance is discharged, and the two lane cards it was stranding — objectui#7911 and objectui#8800, both ruled Clause-②: yes by director batch #137 — become landable through the subagent route.

   ⛔ Text still to change — ⛔ NOT by this seat

   SKILL.md:523 now contradicts a maintainer ruling and 「两条细则冲突…⛔ 不当场改文本了结」 no longer applies, because this is no longer a 细则-vs-细则 conflict. But SKILL.md is governed surface and a lane execution seat ⛔ does not edit it. Leaving the losing line standing would reproduce this card.

   ⇒ the text change belongs to the skills lane: line 523's 「未达档席 ⛔ 不审、不起该档子代理」 should be rewritten to the ruled route, and contract-review.md:26 (「未达档默认档自审加门禁、挂标」) reconciled against it so one of the three readings survives rather than three. ⛔ This seat proposes the direction and writes none of it.

   ⚠️ An open verification question this ruling does not answer

   The route requires the review record's Served-tier: line to be true, and the same reference makes two statements that together may put that out of a subagent's reach:

   ⛔ 自述档位与传参皆非读数

   保险丝只测座位自会话:mode:subagent 里 get_session 量的是派发会话,⛔ 不作互证

   ⇒ if a subagent's get_session returns the dispatching session, then a review subagent cannot produce a reading of its own serving model — only a self-report, which that first line excludes. The ruled route would then rest on the dispatching seat's model: parameter, which is 传参 and excluded too.

   This seat is measuring it now rather than assuming either way, and will record the reading on this card. ⛔ No clause-② review is rendered under this route until that reading exists — 「产出裁决的每轮都须读到契约复审档位,见回退证据 ⇒ 裁决整体作废」 means an unverifiable tier voids the verdict it produces, so establishing the channel is a precondition, not paperwork.

   ---

   Generated by Claude Code
3. hotlong commented on Sep 16, 2026

   

   hotlong

   on Sep 16, 2026 – with Claude

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   ⭐ The verification channel EXISTS — measured, and it is the one the rule is named after

   domain:spec @ objectui seat, session session_01VCpmqvacV4BypY48QdoxcE, 2026-09-16T11:35Z. This discharges the open precondition in the ruling record above: a review subagent can produce a reading of its own serving model, so a Served-tier: line under the ruled route is evidence rather than a self-report.

   ⛔ First, the two channels that do NOT work — both confirmed, not assumed

   A one-shot probe subagent was dispatched at the contract-review tier and asked only 「by what reading can you establish which model is serving YOU」.

   channel	result
   get_session with session_id omitted	returns the DISPATCHING session session_01VCpmqvacV4BypY48QdoxcE; session_context.model, last_served_model and configured_model all read claude-opus-5 — the parent's tier
   the harness system-prompt text in the subagent's own context	names a model, but it is injected text ⇒ 自述 class, excluded by 「⛔ 自述档位与传参皆非读数」
   the dispatching Agent call's model: input, and the agent .meta.json	传参, excluded by the same line
   env, diagnostics log, both repos' settings.json, /root/.claude.json, MCP logs	no variable or key names the serving model

   ⇒ 〈降档保险丝〉's clause 「mode:subagent 里 get_session 量的是派发会话,⛔ 不作互证」 is exactly right, and the probe reproduced it rather than taking it on trust.

   ⭐ The channel that DOES work — the subagent's own transcript

   Every type: "assistant" record in a subagent's on-disk transcript carries message.model, and these are persisted API response objects: server-issued message.id (msg_…), requestId (req_…) and usage including inference_geo — fields only the server produces, ⛔ not a client-side echo of the request.

   This seat re-measured it independently over every subagent transcript this session has produced, extracting only that one field:

   subagent	dispatched with	transcript message.model
   agent-a3c70e68… (objectui#8961 dev)	model: opus	claude-opus-5
   agent-a3bcaf87… (objectui#9585 dev)	model: opus	claude-opus-5
   agent-ade61c3c… (objectui#8831 dev)	model: opus	claude-opus-5
   agent-a0d54936… (objectui#9593 dev)	model: opus	claude-opus-5
   agent-a0fb1d62… (objectui#8924 dev)	model: opus	claude-opus-5
   agent-a63a1d65… (the probe)	model: fable	claude-fable-5-1

   ⭐ The control is built in. Five transcripts read one value and the sixth — the only one dispatched at a different tier — reads the other, through the same instrument in the same directory. ⇒ the field discriminates; it is ⛔ not a constant the channel emits regardless. And the probe's value differs from its dispatcher's claude-opus-5, so it is ⛔ not a copy of the parent's reading.

   ⚠️ Stated as gaps rather than glossed: (i) this seat's attempt to read the parent session's own transcript file for a matched control returned no file at the path tried — the 5-vs-1 split above is what carries the control instead; (ii) the probe verified the field sits on a response object by its server-issued ids and usage, but ⛔ did not intercept raw HTTP; (iii) no env var exposes a subagent's own agentId, so the transcript must be identified by content match or mtime — unambiguous once identified, but it is a step, not a lookup.

   ⇒ What this means for the ruled route

   The ruled route is implementable: an at-tier review subagent's Served-tier: CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER can be backed by a reading, and 「产出裁决的每轮都须读到契约复审档位」 is satisfiable rather than vacuous.

   ⭐ And the reading is precisely what the rule's own name already prescribes — 「转录核验的复核子代理」. The transcript IS the verification. ⛔ Nothing new is invented here; what was missing was only that no line says which channel 转录核验 means, which is why this seat read the route as unverifiable an hour ago.

   ⇒ ⛔ still not this seat's to write, but the skills-lane text change now has a second, smaller part alongside reconciling SKILL.md:523: name the transcript channel in 〈降档保险丝〉, so the next seat does not re-derive it — or wrongly conclude, as this one did, that get_session's parent-scoped answer closes the question.

   This seat proceeds under the ruling: objectui#7911 and objectui#8800 are no longer stranded.

   ---

   Generated by Claude Code
4. hotlong commented on Sep 16, 2026

   

   hotlong

   on Sep 16, 2026 – with Claude

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Work cards filed — this finding now has carriers

   domain:spec @ objectui seat, session session_01VCpmqvacV4BypY48QdoxcE, 2026-09-16T11:39Z. On the maintainer's instruction 「如果技能有问题的话,也要立卡修改」.

   This card is the report: the conflict, the ruling, and the verification reading. ⛔ A report is not a repair, and a fix living inside a finding has no owner. Two work cards now carry it:

   • objectstack#18453 — implement the ruled route: reconcile SKILL.md:523 and contract-review.md:26, and name the transcript channel in 〈降档保险丝〉. Carries the maintainer ruling verbatim and the measured control pair, so triage can grade it without re-deriving anything.
   • objectstack#18454 — the wider shape this sat inside: the skill cites repo-scoped instruments without naming their cross-repo applicability. Three cited scripts measured this shift, three different behaviours — one refuses loudly, one answers with the wrong repository's roster, one works only via PM_SWEEP_REPO.

   ⛔ Both filed bare and ungraded: domain:* and priority are the triage seat's, and ⛔ neither is this seat's to write — SKILL.md and references/** are governed surface.

   ℹ️ One correction this seat owes, recorded rather than quietly dropped: it first characterised check-expected-skips.mjs's cross-repo behaviour as an undocumented tooling defect. It is documented — in that script's own header, which states that the roster is this repository's workflows and that a sibling repo needs its own. The gap is in the skill that cites it, not in the script. #18454 is filed on that corrected reading.

   ---

   Generated by Claude Code