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.
1The pulse collector is live and the catalog can prove it — may I now execute ADR-0004 part 3 for this effort: unload co.propflow.watch6, remove/load-fence the babysitter plist, and reduce fleet-pulse.sh to its actuator half?
In plain terms. The new session-status tool is live and running every two minutes, so may I now switch off the three older tools it replaces? Two of them are already all but idle — one writes a log nothing reads, and another is not even loaded — and the third keeps the useful half that posts to Slack. The reason to do it rather than leave them: they are not just duplicates, they are wrong, marking five of six sessions finished when they were not and telling a session that was waiting on you to keep driving. Undoing it is cheap — one background job switched back on and one script restored.
Fable recommends: Yes — switch off the three older tools now, keeping the Slack-posting half The written decision made removal conditional on the new collector EXISTING, not on how many sessions it covers, and that condition was met today: it is classifying all 120 sessions every two minutes and the catalog's own freshness check reads healthy. I checked that wording rather than trusting my memory of it. I had wanted to hold until coverage improved and was wrong: the coverage I thought I was protecting is not there — the old tools watch four to seven sessions between them, not 120, and what they report is measurably false. An instrument that reports healthy when it is not is worse than one that says nothing, which is this system's own stated rule. Tried first, unsuccessfully: f97235eed — RESOLVED, held under reversal (high/high), and it argued AGAINST my position, which is why I am passing on its answer rather than mine. It found the removal condition in the decision record was the collector existing; that the risk of 'replacing five answers with none' is specifically about the Slack posting, which this plan keeps; and that two of the three retirements cost nothing because their outputs already have no reader. It could not settle the ACTION, because switching off live background jobs is infra, which your standing rule says comes to you.