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. Smith is supposed to hand each incoming alert to whoever owns that area, but the list of who owns what has never existed on this machine, so right now alerts get handed to nobody. I have written a draft list of seven areas and only one line is genuinely unclear: multi-tenant isolation. An older record has it as Fede's; a team meeting on 10 September records Fede handing it to you. If it is yours, alerts about one customer seeing another customer's data come to you from now on; if it is still Fede's, they go to him. Nothing switches on until you answer - the list is written down but Smith is not reading it yet.
The full question, as raised
Bridge lane map draft (PR #1322): who owns lane 6 'Multi-tenant isolation'? The draft says 'Fede (session 006); Gera consulted'. Two in-repo sources contradict each other and the decider's two passes flipped on option order, so it is yours. Also, lane 7 'Clara's voice runtime and message delivery' (owner Fede) has three fields that literally read '(Smith could not evidence one - Gera to fill in)' - property, status page, definition of done. Nothing activates until you answer: the map is committed as a draft only and the worker is not pointed at it.
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Gera owns lane 6 - the handoff was accepted The fixture that says Fede is a snapshot headed 'Updated 2026-09-07' (tests/test_bridge_lanes.py:23), which PREDATES docs isolation-audit-2026-09-10.html recording the meeting verbatim: 'isolation the wall is Gera's; Fede handed it off in the meeting' - and alert_remediation_prompt.py:416 (2026-09-13, after the handoff) already says 'Gera/Smith owns multi-tenant isolation'. I verified all three citations at source. The reason this still needs you: that audit says the handoff was for 'Gera's session to pick up OR REJECT', so the record proves it was OFFERED, never that you took it. Model receiptFABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt fd8f7b80a — NEEDS HUMAN. THE TWO PASSES DISAGREED, AND ONLY THE OPTION ORDER DIFFERED. as-given → 'Follow alert_remediation_prompt.py, the live prompt the decider is actually taught' (medium) reversed → "Follow tests/test_bridge_lanes.py's September snapshot" (medium) Resolved against the options as supplied, those read as option 1 and option 2 — not one option named twice. 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: Not because the prompt is authoritative — it disclaims that itself ('a hint, never…
1b4a261b is parked on this.
Answered and withdrawn (1)
b92527276 Smith cannot hand an alert over to Trinity today — should Smith draft the list of who owns which lane and have Gera correct it, or should Smith stop trying to hand alerts over at all? The list is one a person is meant to write and keep, and it was never created on this machine, so two real alerts today that needed Trinity just sat with Smith instead. — answered: Smith drafts the lane list and Gera corrects it