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.
1Two of your tasks have been stuck waiting on a person for 25.7 hours and nobody was ever told. The system tried to tell someone 28 times; every attempt failed, because the address it sends to is a session that died on Aug 9. The fix is written and waiting for you in PR #49. What do you want done first?
In plain terms. Two jobs on your machine have been sitting waiting for you since yesterday morning, and you were never told. They're each being babysat by a helper that's watching a window that closed a day ago — so both have been burning money all night doing nothing. The machine did notice, and it tried to flag it 28 separate times, but it was sending those alerts to a helper that had already shut down, so every one of them went into a log file nobody opens. The repair for that is written and tested and sitting in PR #49 waiting for you. The question is just what you want handled first: merge the repair now so the machine starts flagging this kind of thing to you on its own, or leave the repair on its normal review queue and let me clear the two stuck jobs by hand. I'd suggest the second — the two stuck jobs are the part that's costing you right now, and they're stuck for reasons that have nothing to do with the repair.
Fable recommends: Leave #49 on its normal review schedule, and just deal with the two stuck tasks by hand now — they are stuck for their own reasons and do not need the fix to be unstuck The two stuck tasks are the urgent part and are independent of the fix — each has a live Operator that has been looping on a session that no longer exists for over a day, which costs real money and produces nothing. #49 is verified but it is a supervisor change with no CI behind it, and merging it under time pressure is how a fix for a silent-failure bug becomes the next silent failure. Nothing about #49 gets worse by waiting a review cycle; the two tasks get worse every hour. Tried first, unsuccessfully: fa89459e1 — asked whether to raise this at all or leave it to the PR and the task timeline. RESOLVED (held under option reversal, high/high) toward raising: the do-not-raise option relies on exactly the surfaces that have failed to reach a human for 25.7 hours, and declining to raise reproduces the defect by hand. It did NOT decide the merge question — that is preference and risk, which is yours.
9a8bf3bb (adopted from c175d35f) is parked on this. 1 other session waiting on this same answer.
Asked by more than one session. Your answer above goes back to all of them.
0d84ff5f asked it this way: agentflow-relay #49 (alarms need a reader) cannot land as answered, and I caused it. You said 'Merge PR #49 now and redeploy' — but merging #41 (red-main) tonight, ahead of it, created a collision its author never saw. Main's redmain callback at supervisor/src/index.ts now does sendMsg(architect, text, dry) directly, which is EXACTLY the skipped-escalation shape #49 exists to abolish, and #49's own guard correctly catches it: 'an alarm messaged to the architect outside escalate() has no fallback when delivery fails — the branch production actually ran, 27 times out of 27'. All six conflict hunks are resolved and 496/499 tests pass; the 3 failures are that guard firing on red-main plus scanner rot. I will not weaken the guard to make it green. The blocker is that routing red-main through escalate() is real design, and one question decides it: a red-main alarm CLOSES when main goes GREEN, not when you click — but resolveAnsweredAlarms treats acknowledgement as execution, so wiring it naively yields alarms that never close, or alarms that close while main is still red, on the Decisions surface itself. How do you want it?