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.
1Same question, one thing stated properly that I had wrong in both directions at once. Fixing the checker clears the AUTOMATED block on #51, #50 and #40 — but #50 and #51 also carry a separate do-not-merge tag that fixing the checker does not touch. My page previously promised all three would go through AND said two were still held, which cannot both be true. Corrected below.
In plain terms. One thing stated properly, and then the choice is the same as before. Fixing the checker clears the automatic block on all three changes. After that #40 can go in. But #51 and #50 also carry a separate do-not-merge tag - it is not the checker, and fixing the checker does not remove it. Who is allowed to take that tag off is being settled right now: if an agent may remove a tag its own tooling put there, #50 clears (you already answered the concern behind that one on 10 August) and #51 still needs your word; if not, both need your word. Either way #40 is the only one that frees itself. My recommendation has not changed.
Fable recommends: Fix the checker properly - I show you it working against all 45 past reviews first, then you approve that one change. That clears the automatic block on all three: #40 can then go in, and #51 and #50 go in when their do-not-merge tag is lifted It is the only option that ends the problem for everything behind it rather than one change at a time, it costs you the same single approval, and I can show you it working before you give it. Re-running is a lottery that frees one. Nothing here asks you to drop the do-not-merge tag - that stays your call whichever option you pick. Tried first, unsuccessfully: Two independent fable-decide runs still say fix it first (fdc045526, f1251de01). This is the last correction and it is the one I am least proud of: my previous version contained BOTH claims - that all three would go through, and that two were held by a tag - and I did not notice they contradicted each other. The operator on #50 caught it. Every correction to this question tonight has come from another session checking my work rather than from me. The underlying measurements have survived every re-check; my summaries of them have not.