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.
1Smith's 'keep me posted' feature has been live for 4 days and has never actually run once — nobody has asked it to. I can prove it works by firing one live test, but the only clean way to do that starts a full autonomous Smith turn in production and posts about 4-6 messages into a quiet Slack channel. I won't do that without your say-so. Run the live test, or close it out as built?
Fable recommends: Run the live test — fire one real run in the dormant #agents-only channel, watch it wake itself, update its status line and shut off after 2 minutes. Everything posted is Smith's own bot, no human's name on anything. Everything about this feature is proven except that it works outside a test suite, and there are already two small known bugs sitting in the exact code path that has never run. Two minutes in a channel that has had no traffic in 17 days is the cheapest possible way to find a third — far cheaper than discovering it the first time you actually need Smith to keep you posted on something. If it misbehaves I can kill it instantly, and it expires on its own after 2 minutes regardless. Tried first, unsuccessfully: I am NOT overriding Fable — I am carrying out what it decided. Receipt f4c79d85c: I asked whether I could start this live test myself. Both independent passes said no at high confidence, and the thing they decided was that I must come to you. So this raise IS the action Fable resolved on, not an escalation around it. Its reasoning: the tool involved is legitimate and checked-in, but permission to use a tool is not authority to fire it — this launches an autonomous Smith turn in production with all its normal powers, and the only way to stop it early is to kill it outright. It also noted your instructions for this task withheld even permission to push code, so launching a live agent run is well past what I was given. An earlier receipt (f69b43240) did approve a live test in principle, but it was asked in the abstract and was never told the mechanism or the blast radius, so I am not treating it as cover. The coding harness independently flagged the same plan for the same reason.