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.
1CI Guard pins was taken off pull requests yesterday to halve Actions cost. Since then it has let three separate author bugs through to main in about three and a half hours, each one turning the build red and needing its own fix. Should it go back on pull requests, in full or in part?
In plain terms. A safety check that used to run on every code change was switched off yesterday to cut our CI bill in half. Since then three separate mistakes have slipped past it and broken the main build in one afternoon - the last one broke it five times over and took two sessions to clean up. Turning the check back on costs money again. Leaving it off means more broken builds. The middle option turns back on only the cheap half of the check, which is the half that would have caught all three.
Fable recommends: Partial - run only the cheap manifest and drift guards on pull requests, keep the heavy shards after merge All three escapes were caught by cheap checks that just read files off disk - a stale generated route list, a missing sensor tag, a banned character in a comment. None needed the expensive test shards. So the partial option appears to buy back nearly all the protection for a small slice of the cost, which respects the halve-the-cost directive that motivated the original change. Flagging honestly that Fable did not settle this: asked twice with the options in opposite orders it picked full restore once and partial once, so the choice between those two is genuinely a judgement call and is yours. Evidence, all three verified by hand: run 32510060430 at 17:48 on 98f21e95d, run 32520464339 at 19:49 on a8af20dd4, run 32527492337 at 21:13 on 01b6ee2c9. The last one turned main red for five commits and pulled in two operator sessions to fix. Also worth knowing: the change was justified on zero author bugs in 60 pushes, and the branch that broke it today touched none of the files the guard covers, so the bug was sitting on the branch where a pull request run would have caught it. No agent can act on this - .github is off limits to us. Fable was asked, and escalated. Receipt f253981e0 — NEEDS HUMAN. THE TWO PASSES DISAGREED, AND ONLY THE OPTION ORDER DIFFERED. as-given → 'Restore Guard pins on pull_request — accept the CI cost; main stability and the operator time spent on reds outweigh it' (medium) reversed → 'Partial — run only the cheap deterministic guard shards (manifest/drift) on PRs, keep the expensive shards post-merge' (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: Read ci.yml @2982810234 (#6012): its stated premise is 'zero author bugs in 60 pushes'. `gi…