Everything I could decide myself is decided. What's left needs
you. Each one has a recommendation from Fable — if you agree, pick it and
press Done. "I'm not sure" is a real answer and becomes work for me.
You don't need to open the session — pressing Done sends your answer back and it picks up.
1agent-smith #alerts change (PR #293) is done and reviewed clean, but its build is red on a failure that has nothing to do with it — the same test fails on main too. The fix for that failure is already written and green in a separate PR (#285), waiting on you. How do you want #293 to land?
Fable recommends: Merge #285 (the build fix) first, then merge #293 once its build goes green It fixes the thing that is failing rather than stepping past it, and it is the same unblock the ci-green-main lane is already waiting on you for — but #285 touches long-lived workflow code, so that merge is genuinely yours, not mine. Fable was asked, and escalated. Receipt f06746781 — NEEDS HUMAN. THE TWO PASSES DISAGREED, AND ONLY THE OPTION ORDER DIFFERED. as-given → 'Hold #293 unmerged until lint-test is green on its exact head SHA' (high) reversed → 'Merge #293 now, citing the unrelated-failure evidence in the merge record' (medium) An answer a reordering can flip is not an independent judgement, it is position bias wearing one. Escalating with both readings attached.
as-given reasoning: I read both PRs and the run history. The failure IS unrelated: #293's diff is only slack_socket.py + its test (109/45 lines, no workflow/operator imports), and main run 32550192089 (sha b6756…
1ade20d2 (adopted from 3c531593) is parked on this.