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. Can Gera restate, in his own words, what 'finished' means for the tour-calendar Slack spam job? This session is already fixing that spam — the tour-calendar warnings that posted 96 times in under a minute — and nothing here slows that down. But this session made a bookkeeping mistake: the checklist that decides when the job counts as finished now carries a broken line that can never be ticked, and the system deliberately will not let this session erase its own checklist line. Only Gera restating the goal unlocks it, and any wording works so long as it is Gera's own. If Gera would rather skip it, the spam still gets fixed, but the job will report a confusing wrong-looking result at the end and this session will have to explain why.
The full question, as raised
A safety test this session wrote misfired and stamped an acceptance condition pointing at a pull request number that does not exist (#99999999), so the gate can never be satisfied. driver-here's enforce_invariant deliberately refuses to let the Driver remove or rewrite a condition; re-baselining requires drive --replace to CHANGE the stored criterion, and identical text re-hashes identical (crit_hash). Current criterion: 'A burst of availability checks for one org with an unreadable tour host posts exactly one Slack card per org+cause+window, proven by a regression test, PR merged'. Gera restating it in his own words lets this session re-baseline and arm the single real witness (pr:PropFlow-Technologies/propflowai#<n> merged).
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Gera restates the goal in his own words The dead condition does not merely leave the job un-closeable: it makes the watcher report a FALSE result, naming a nonexistent pull request even after the real fix merges. A restatement costs Gera one sentence and is his own authorship — this session is not editing his words. The fix work is NOT blocked by this and is running now. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Receipt f33183724 — Fable RESOLVED this and its ruling WAS 'use the human door': raise a block asking Gera to authorise a drive --replace. This session is executing that recommendation, not overriding it. It found driver-here's own docstring and enforce_invariant (1816-1832) already rule that shrinking a gate always routes through the human, so this is the designed path, not an escalation. It rejected the alternative (leave the dead item, append the real one beside it) as strictly worse: the watcher's AND stays permanently false, so even a merged real PR yields a PARTIAL naming a nonexistent PR — a false verdict. Caveat carried into the question: identical replace text re-hashes identical, so the restatement must be in his own words to re-baseline. Earlier receipt fc86770aa, which authorised arming with no mechanical checks, costed only FORGETTING to append the real PR item; it never blessed a poisoned gate.