Design log: review finding gate — the shape follows the move - #987
Open
leeovery wants to merge 5 commits into
Open
Design log: review finding gate — the shape follows the move#987leeovery wants to merge 5 commits into
leeovery wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
…gory A live portal review surfaced four defects in one sitting: the auto gate ignored by a category carve-out from #957, whole spec sections dumped as raw markdown, every finding printing its heading twice, and an unsourced decision rendering a conflict menu over sides no source documents. All four trace to one substitution — the surface asks what kind of finding it is when the only question that determines presentation is who can answer it. Contract F1-F8 inherits the lanes classification and diverges deliberately on batching: auto survives here, and its meaning is unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The surface and its two callers are one payload contract and cannot split across PRs; the agents separate cleanly once the loops classify an unlabelled finding themselves. The choice shape stayed inside render finding rather than becoming a sibling surface. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Aug 23, 2026
The conversational branch was never missing — resolve-source-incoherence has had it all along. The defect was that classify never learns which category routed a finding into it, so an unsourced decision could be read as a documented collision. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…, and the bar declined on data Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ides re-derivation Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Long-lived design log for the finding-gate programme. Opened from a live portal specification review on 2026-08-23; stays open and gets appended as the stack lands.
Four defects in one sitting, all tracing to one substitution — the finding surface picks its shape from the finding's category when the only question that determines presentation is who can answer it:
autogate ignored by acategory !== 'gap'carve-out that rode in with feat(spec): review findings that indict a source route back, never apply #957Contract F1–F8 inherits the classification from
review-finding-lanes.md— whose own open decisions named this surface as unaudited — and diverges deliberately on batching:autosurvives, with its meaning unchanged.No behaviour change in this PR.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code