Pick an option on each card and press Done; your answer goes straight
back to the session. The raiser's pick is marked. "I'm not sure" and "Take it to the engineering bridge" are real answers.
1
In plain terms. Every safety check we merged today is sitting switched off, because this machine can no longer pick up changes to its own agent settings — who should own fixing that? A plan for it was written on 2026-09-17 and has been waiting for an owner ever since; in that time the gap has grown from 19 unmerged local changes to 103, and the one file in the way is the review service's own code, which is running live right now.
The full question, as raised
guard-bash rule 32 (gera-propflow/dotclaude#231) merged at 733269d after four Codex rounds, with both-ways evidence and an 8,117-command replay (245 denied, 3.0%). It is NOT installed: ~/.claude/hooks/guard-prod-script.py does not exist and the live guard-bash.sh has 0 references to rule 32 (control: rule 31 has 5). update-dotclaude.py exits 1 and applies nothing — ~/.claude is 103 local-only / 7 upstream-only commits, conflicting in services/review-webhook/listener.js (local dirty diff 552+/344-, executed live by com.propflow.review-webhook). EVERY dotclaude guard merged today is in the same state. ~/.claude/jobs/runtime-update/reconciliation-plan-20260917.md already rules the approach: owner-controlled cutover, a concrete 6-step sequence, no git reset --hard / clean / blind stash / Agent Smith script against ~/.claude, and line 84 says 'the driver has been asked to record a distinct reconciliation owner and obtain that owner's acceptance'. That owner was never recorded. Decider f179119c5: both passes chose 'a human with authority reconciles, then the updater runs'; it also rejects a second competing puller (plan line 78) and shows the narrow-apply option is already what the updater does — the block is that no conflict-free merge exists.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: The review service's owner reconciles it The single blocking file is the review-webhook listener, and the 2026-09-17 plan says its replacement and restart need the active review service owner — so that person is the gate whichever route is chosen. I am deliberately not naming them: I should not guess who owns a live service. Option 3 is my second choice and is viable — the plan's six steps are concrete, and it explicitly forbids the dangerous shortcuts (no git reset --hard, no clean, no blind stash, not the Agent Smith script) — but it still needs that same owner's decisions on ten uncommitted source edits, so it does not remove the dependency. Option 4 is the one I would argue against: it leaves every session believing a guard protects it when none does, which is the same reads-as-present-but-absent failure this whole task has been chasing, and it silently voids the ruling that commissioned rule 32. NOTE: the decider escalated this although both its passes agreed, on a keyword match for the word 'commit' (as in a git commit). The escalation is right in substance, since assigning an owner is a commitment to a person, but the trigger was incidental. Model receiptFABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt f179119c5 — NEEDS HUMAN. Both passes agreed on 'A human with authority reconciles the conflicting commit, then the updater runs', and it is being escalated anyway: this question turns on money or a commitment to a person (matched 'commit'), which is not a model's to settle however confident it sounds.
Paid for on 2026-08-07: the unit-607 renewal rate came back RESOLVED from both passes at high confidence and was wrong — Fable found the standup ruling about the move-in SPECIAL and missed the correction posted 2h21m later saying she had actually asked about the RATE.
The reasoning, which is still worth reading before…
0140429c is parked on this.
2
In plain terms. The shared copy of the code on the mini has been frozen since yesterday morning and is 186 changes behind, and I am not allowed to touch that folder — may I run one command to unstick it, or will you? The blockage is an abandoned half-finished edit whose real version already shipped on 2026-10-10, so nothing of value is lost, and the command tucks it aside rather than deleting it so it can be restored if I am wrong.
The full question, as raised
/Users/miniclaw/code/PropFlow/propflowai is 186 commits behind origin/main (local HEAD 2e623c927a9 2026-10-11 11:40Z vs tip 87044881e15 2026-10-12 06:45Z). The puller is healthy and correctly refusing every 5 min: 'state=BEHIND_REFUSED health=bad commits=186 ... ff-only refused: Merging is not possible because you have unmerged files'. THE EXACT COMMAND, which stashes rather than deletes: git add src/lib/temporal/activities/executed-lease-fetch.ts ; git stash push -m '<label naming #18579 and receipt fdff5782a>' -- src/lib/temporal/activities/executed-lease-fetch.ts src/lib/domain/pms/session-outage.ts src/lib/temporal/activities/__tests__/executed-lease-fetch-activity.test.ts. IMPACT: every session that reads or runs from that checkout silently gets 19-hour-old code. It bit me today — I read a script tip-exact with git show origin/main: and then executed the stale working copy, which lacked a flag merged yesterday (0 occurrences locally vs 7 on main), so I got a different entry point's answer; I caught it from the printed header and did not report the number.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: This session runs the stash command now This is NOT a disagreement with the decider and not a question about whether the act is safe — both are settled. It is a permission I do not hold. Option 3 may be the better durable answer: SYSTEMS.md names Agent Smith's git-hygiene as that checkout's live owner and the stash reflog shows it has stashed main-checkout drift before, so the lasting fix is that it keeps doing so rather than a driver stepping in. I would argue against option 4: lanes already use fresh worktrees and were unaffected, but every plain READ of that checkout answers confidently and wrongly, and no rule a person has to remember will prevent that. Tried first, unsuccessfully: fable-decide fdff5782a RESOLVED (FABLE, confidence high/high, held under reversal): 'an agent session clears the three files'. So the decision is SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF ACTING and I am not escalating the decision — I am escalating because the permission classifier refused my attempt as 'Modify Shared Resources', and I did not retry it in another shape. I verified the ruling's three load-bearing claims independently rather than taking them: (1) no .git/MERGE_HEAD and the markers read 'Updated upstream'/'Stashed changes', so it is a stash-apply not a merge; (2) both sides are superseded drafts of the login-breaker-401 fix already shipped as cb04e58e3fe (#18579, 2026-10-10), and origin/main's test file carries the equivalent tests at lines 367-375 with the same Sentry reference; (3) the precedent is on disk, git stash list showing 'On main: git-hygiene-main-drift 20261005 ... found wedging main checkout'. ONE CORRECTION TO THE RULING: it cited ADR-0037 as its authority, but that ADR is 'worktrees-are-disposable' and governs worktrees, not the main checkout — the on-disk precedent is the real basis, not the ADR.
0140429c is parked on this.
Answered and withdrawn (1)
b91774186 The work to cut our database bill is finished and the database does now sit under the target cost most of the time, but the daily average is still about twice the target because people occasionally dump the whole database by hand — should I call this done now, or hold it open until that's prevented? Calling it done closes the last item on this job; holding it open means waiting on a safeguard that would have to cover Fede's own admin access, which he was already asked about and was free to decline. — withdrawn