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 fix that stops these false red-main alerts is merged, but it is not running yet. The supervisor works off a separate copy that is one commit behind, so it needs updating and restarting before anything actually changes. Restarting it briefly interrupts supervision for every session on the machine. Should the operator do that now?
In plain terms. Four separate sessions have now been woken up about a broken build that was actually fixed two weeks ago — 87 of the last 108 of these alerts were false. I found the cause and the fix is merged, but it is not switched on yet: doing that means restarting the supervisor, which briefly pauses the thing that watches every session on the machine. Turning it on stops the false alarms; leaving it off means they keep happening until someone does it.
Fable recommends: Yes, but not by the operator — leave it for a human to run The rollout is one commit and about a minute, and it is worth doing — until it happens nothing changes. But restarting the supervisor interrupts supervision for every session on the machine, which is the infra-blast-radius case you have said to check with you on. A botched restart takes down the watcher itself, quietly, for everyone; a false alarm is expensive but self-correcting. So: worth doing soon, by a person watching it. Fable was asked, and escalated. Receipt fbb0912c0 — NEEDS HUMAN. Both passes agreed on 'Yes, but not by the operator — leave it for a human to run', and it is being escalated anyway: this question turns on money or a commitment to a person (matched 'commit'), which is not Fable's to settle however confident it sounds.
Paid for on 2026-08-07: the unit-607 renewal rate came back RESOLVED from both passes at high confidence and was wrong — Fable found the standup ruling about the move-in SPECIAL and missed the correction posted 2h21m later saying she had actually asked about the RATE.
Fable's reasoning, which is still worth reading before you decide: Read ev… Tried first, unsuccessfully: fbb0912c0 — asked twice with the options reversed; both passes said a human should run it, and it escalated anyway because it is a commitment to a person. Its three reasons: the PR itself scoped rollout as a separate call, your standing rule names alarm/infra blast radius as the wait-for-me category, and the risk is asymmetric — a bad restart silently kills supervision for everyone.