Everything I could decide myself is decided. What's left needs
you. Each one carries the recommendation of the session that raised it — if you
agree, pick it and press Done. A model's opinion, where there is one, appears on the card
as a receipt line; cards with no receipt were never put to a model. "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.
1
In plain terms. Should the second early-unpause fix go in its own new pull request, or be added to the first one? When main breaks we pause auto-merging; we fixed one way the pause lifted too early, and a second way remains. Either way Fede merges it by hand.
The full question, as raised
The two freeze PRs (#13731, #13730) are approved and held for Fede, but the builders found the OTHER freeze-clearer (the one that waits for deploy) would have lifted the same freeze 6 minutes later on 09-29 — so #13731 alone does not stop a repeat. Ship that fix as a separate third PR, or fold it into #13731?
The session raising this recommends: Its own new pull request; the two approved ones stay as they are Keeps the two approved PRs stable and each PR one concern; the fix is being built now on its own branch, so folding it in later is a cherry-pick if you prefer that. Model receiptFABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt feabb801d — NEEDS HUMAN. ANSWERED BY ASTRA, NOT FABLE — Fable did not answer because it could not be reached.
THE TWO PASSES DISAGREED, AND ONLY THE OPTION ORDER DIFFERED. as-given → 'Extend #13731 to also gate the deploy-gated clearer (G1) and re-drive it to 🟢; file G2/G3 as follow-up rows only' (high) reversed → 'Open G1+G2+G3 as new dock rows and dispatch follow-up PRs now (each off origin/main, held for human merge like the first two), leaving #13730/#13731 untouched' (high) An answer a reordering can flip is not an independent judgement, it is position bias wearing one. Escalating with both readings attached…