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.
1Four nightly jobs are not failing — they are NOT SCHEDULED, and have not run since July. You answered decision b87721567 with 'Drive all four to green now', but that answer was given when we all believed they were running and failing. VERIFIED on the mini just now: turnover-eval-daily, maintenance-eval-daily, morpheus-nightly-daily and git-hygiene-main-drift have ZERO plists in ~/Library/LaunchAgents (37 exist, none match), ZERO entries in launchctl list (25 propflow jobs loaded, none match), and no crontab lines. Their local logs simply stop in July — consistent with not running, not with failing. The fifth, graphify-refresh-daily, is a Temporal Cloud schedule (tools-prod) I cannot reach from here, so it is genuinely unknown rather than confirmed either way. Why I did not just reinstall them: they hit the prod bench (appfolio-45), post to Slack, and spend model tokens every run — your named 'name the risk and wait' class — and descheduling can be deliberate here, since the registry marks marketing-daily 'SUPERSEDED, plist exists but is not loaded'. Do you want these four back on a schedule, or were they retired?
In plain terms. Do you want four nightly jobs put back on a schedule, retired, or some of each? They have not run since July — not failing, simply never scheduled. You said earlier to drive them all to green, but that was when we believed they were running and failing. Putting them back means nightly runs that write to a live test property, post to Slack and spend model time.
Fable recommends: Reinstall all four on their registry schedules — they were meant to run and quietly fell off (RECOMMENDED if they are still wanted) Only as the most likely intent, not as something I should have done unasked. Each still carries a registry row with a concrete schedule and log path, which is what a LIVE job looks like — a retired one gets marked SUPERSEDED the way marketing-daily was. So the evidence leans toward 'fell off' rather than 'retired'. But the cost runs the other way: reinstalling four decommissioned jobs means nightly prod-bench writes, Slack posts and token spend someone then has to notice and unwind, while asking costs one round-trip on jobs already dark seven weeks. The lesson underneath is worth more than the fix: a job whose only voice is its own log is invisible the moment it stops. That is the same shape as the reviewer-token pipeline's 'cycle done' canary, which exists because dead things do not speak. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Fable RESOLVED this (receipt ff838188e, held under option reversal, high confidence both ways) and its resolution was itself 'surface the finding and let Gera decide — the premise of his answer changed'. So this raise EXECUTES that recommendation rather than overriding it; there is no disagreement to record. Fable's two reasons: (1) Gera's own global rules name cron schedules and infra blast radius as the one exception to drive-by-default, and installing four launchd jobs that hit a prod bench, post to Slack and spend tokens nightly is that class; (2) the registry itself shows descheduling can be deliberate — marketing-daily is marked 'SUPERSEDED, plist exists but is not loaded' — so these four may be retired rather than broken, and only Gera knows intent. It also noted his 'drive to green' consent was consent to FIXING RUNNING JOBS, not to re-creating schedules. What Fable tried before landing there: it re-verified the plist/launchctl/crontab counts independently and checked the registry for prior-art on deliberate descheduling.