I'm parked on you

Pick an option on each card and press Done; your answer goes straight back to the session. The raiser's pick is marked. "I'm not sure" and "Take it to the engineering bridge" are real answers.

1

In plain terms. One check on how Clara handles a tour booked for someone else tests four things at once, and because Clara may answer two different ways, two repair attempts have each broken a different part — should I break it into separate smaller checks, or wait for Fede? Splitting it would not make anything easier to pass; I checked. Waiting means the safeguard from an old customer complaint keeps depending on which way Clara happens to reply.
The full question, as raised

The leasing-on-behalf booking-gate rows have now defeated two different fixes, each producing a DIFFERENT failure in the same mechanism. The suspected cause is row SHAPE: each row grades one reply that must satisfy booking behaviour AND a name ask AND phone handling across two branches Clara may freely choose. Splitting each conjunctive row so one row pins one claim is the obvious design change, but adding rows to a 27-row gauntlet at a 95% floor was thought to change what one tolerated miss means, without anyone deciding to loosen anything. Does the Driver authorise a row SPLIT itself as ordinary eval maintenance, or is changing the row count on a floored gauntlet a gate decision that must go to Fede first? TWO NEW VERIFIED FACTS since the decider split on option order: (a) the 95 percent floor tolerates EXACTLY ONE miss for every row count from 27 through 39 because ceil(0.95n)=n-1, becoming two only at n=40 - so a split under 40 rows does NOT loosen the gate, which was the whole objection; (b) BUT src/__tests__/eval-floor-extraction.test.ts:275 hard-pins expect(cases).toBe(27), so a split MUST edit a CI gate test in the same commit, and that test reads the YAML via readFileSync at runtime rather than importing it, so a dataset-only change never marks it affected and Unit Tests (affected) can miss the breakage. Its own comment records this pin being missed three times before.

Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Split it now, keeping the old safeguard intact
The one objection was that splitting would quietly let the check tolerate more failures. I measured it: the number of failures allowed stays at exactly one for any size from 27 up to 39 cases, so that objection is false here. What is left is a bookkeeping trap, not a safety one, and I would update the one place that records the case count in the same change and say so plainly. Leaving it as it is keeps the safeguard from the August customer complaint depending on which of two replies Clara happens to pick, which is worse for the thing it protects. Two different repairs have already failed on this shape.
Model receiptFABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt fbf6f5787 — NEEDS HUMAN.
THE TWO PASSES DISAGREED, AND ONLY THE OPTION ORDER DIFFERED.
as-given → 'The Driver authorises the split. It is an eval test file, fully reversible, no production behaviour changes, catalog.ts untouched, and splitting one conjunctive assertion into separate single-claim rows makes the suite test MORE precisely rather than less - the floor arithmetic moving is a side effect of better coverage, not a loosening, and the PR body can state the before/after row count and headroom explicitly for Fede to see.' (high)
reversed → "Hold for Fede before splitting. The row count is the denominator of…

ed118fcd is parked on this.

2

In plain terms. Clara can either reliably write down what a renter asked for, or reliably pass on a question she cannot answer — not both right now, so Gera needs to say which matters more. The mini recommends a third path first: today it found and fixed a separate, clearer problem where Clara may treat a wheelchair-access request as an ordinary preference and tell nobody.
The full question, as raised

Clara cannot currently both capture a stated want and reliably forward a question she cannot answer — every single-site fix measured zero-sum. Which regression do we accept: hold main (want capture 0/3), ship the same-turn fix 4629607ee21 (want 4/4, forward drops to 6/12), or hold both and ship the separately-measured accommodation forwarding fix first (PR #22433)?

Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Ship the wheelchair-request fix first, then revisit this trade-off
This option's premise changed since the question was first refused for want of a slot. It then read 'defer pending the MT7 accommodation-routing measurement'; that measurement is now DONE and it landed: the accommodation defect is real and separately located — bucket 5 classifies the request correctly, then delegates to three places that do not contain the topic, while RULE 7.5, the only rule pairing the sanctioned sentence with the mandatory call, scopes itself out — and it measured 2/10 to 10/10 at p=0.000357 on the default prompt nearly every live property renders. That is a strictly smaller and better-evidenced change than either zero-sum trade, so taking it first costs nothing and may shrink this question. Honest limits: its current head is UNMEASURED because the shared eval budget was exhausted 22:12Z-23:12Z, one counter-regression is open (MT8 10/10 to 7/10, p=0.1053), and it is parked as a draft so it cannot ship itself.
Tried first, unsuccessfully: fable-decide already ruled on the predecessor question (block b92927013, now withdrawn): 'Rewrite that section as a numbered order of operations', on the explicit ground that 'both single-sentence fixes were measured and each breaks the other, so prose emphasis is exhausted; structure is what is left.' That ruling WAS carried out as PR #22366 and the rewrite measured ALSO zero-sum, so structure is exhausted too and the decider's own stated cost-if-wrong — 'the human risk-appetite call lands later than it could have' — has come true. No model path remains: what is left is which regression to accept, which the decider itself flagged as not a model's to settle.

ed118fcd is parked on this.

315 questions on this

In plain terms. Two switches are waiting on a founder and nobody below can throw either: a finished pull request that sets measured pass marks for two kinds of Clara test, and a broken-build report that was built but never started. Saying yes to both means the nightly tests can finally finish honestly and the team gets told when the build breaks; saying no to either leaves that one exactly as it is today.

1 of 15 answered

1PR #22343 is green with a clean reviewer verdict at its exact head and is held for you because it widens an eval tolerance. Release it?

In plain terms. Can this pull request go through? Letting it through means two kinds of Clara test start judging themselves against a measured pass mark, stricter than the ones already in use; leaving it held means they keep failing every night on misses already known and written down.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Release the hold; let it merge
The numbers it sets are at-or-TIGHTER than the floors already in force, so 'widens a tolerance' is true of the lane and not of the bar: maintenance-tools sweep 86.7 against nightly 84.0, and renewals sweep 95 equal to both nightly 95 and renewal 95. I read this off the PR's own diff, not off a summary. It was measured over 16 real runs on 89 rows (the 14 scheduled nightlies that still carry artifacts, Oct 12-25, plus two more), and the PR records that its own method would have allowed 92.1 and that it deliberately chose the tighter 95.0 instead. It ships 19 tracked gaps -- 18 tolerated by a floor, 1 tolerated by none -- each naming the real miss and its issue, rather than absorbing them silently. Head 141347035a7fd5a5020095b124564960aa5fa7b9 carries a real APPROVED at that exact sha with zero findings. fable-decide receipt fa92b2593 returned NEEDS HUMAN: no fact is missing, only your call on risk appetite.

2The 8-hourly CI report has never run on a timer: its cron is written but commented out on purpose, because switching it on is a founder's act. Arm it?

In plain terms. Should the broken-build report be switched on? Switching it on means three posts a day into the spending channel; leaving it off means nobody is told the build broke, because twenty-one other alerts were turned off on the promise this one would cover them.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Arm it now, posting to #spending
The workflow says in its own header that it is deliberately unarmed and that arming is attended and founder-gated, so nobody below you can do it. Everything else is ready: the cron line is written and commented at that exact cadence, and the file records that the Slack token is already set for this repo. 21 workflows deleted their own Slack posts on the promise that this report carries their signal, and the file's own words are 'until it runs, their reds reach nobody' -- this dock's nightly red issues were filed at 04:10Z today and are read by nothing. This question has its OWN fable-decide receipt, f55aac84f, separate from the other question's: it returned NEEDS HUMAN, finding no fact missing and only the authorization. It also found that a once-a-day cron would be defective as written, because the report window is fixed at 8 hours on a scheduled run, so a daily job would silently drop 16 hours every day -- that is why no daily option is offered here; the cadence if armed is 00:00 / 08:00 / 16:00 UTC, the one already written in the file.

3dashboard-chat fails the nightly only because its sweep-lane entry is 'strict'. Adopt the measured floor of 92.0 there?

In plain terms. Should a second test area get a measured pass mark of 92 instead of demanding a perfect score? Adopting it means that area stops failing every night over one known, tracked miss by a single model, and a recorded contradiction between two checks gets deleted; leaving it as is means it keeps failing nightly on a miss already understood and written down. This is a founder's call, not this session's, and 92 is the same number the weekly check already uses.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Adopt 92.0 in the sweep lane
Measured over 17 samples: lowest observed 97.222 percent, highest 100, spread exactly one test case. The doctrine in the board row would permit 91.7; 92.0 is tighter than that. All three candidate numbers are behaviourally IDENTICAL at this suite size - 91.7, 92.0 and 94.4 all pass 34 of 36 and fail 33 of 36 - so the choice costs nothing in tolerance, and 94.4 would create a NEW disagreement between the two lanes for zero gain. 92.0 is already in force in the weekly workflow, so adopting it in the daily lane lets the recorded threshold conflict be DELETED rather than restated - exactly the move the pending PR makes for renewals at 95.0. The miss is the shape a floor is defensible for: one named row, one of two providers (the other is perfect on all 17 samples), a deterministic assert rather than an AI judge, the same verbatim reason all three times, and 3 misses in the 13 samples since that row was added. The assert is backed by production's own instruction to say which period is being shown, so the gap is real and stays tracked rather than disappearing. It is NOT a regression from the recent prompt change: the same row missed twice before that change landed. Separately measured and reported to you as part of this set: the third strict domain, prospect-summary, CANNOT be fixed by any floor - its test demands the lead source that production forbids by name - so adopting this one plus releasing the other PR fixes two of three, and the nightly stays red on the third until that test row is corrected.

4The cancel-save eval has a pass mark that is mathematically incapable of tolerating a single miss, so it fails every night. Widening it is a floor change, which this dock reserves for you. Repair it to 85?

In plain terms. Should one of Clara's nightly tests have its pass mark moved to 85 percent? Right now it is set so that even one wrong answer out of seven fails the whole thing, so it reports a failure every single night over the same known miss. Moving it to 85 lets that one known miss through while still failing the moment a second thing breaks; leaving it as is means it keeps crying wolf nightly and the real signal stays buried. This is a founder's call because changing a pass mark is.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Repair the band to 15, giving a floor of 85
VERIFIED AGAINST THE REPO'S OWN PREDICATE, not reasoned about: bandAbsorbsOneRow in src/__tests__/helpers/rate-gate-band-vs-sample-size.ts is the single inequality guardBand >= 100/rows. cancel-save has 7 rows, so the minimum honest band is 14.29 and its current band is 11 — undersized, which is why the repo's own UNDERSIZED_BANDS census already names cancel-save as the measured instance behind that guard. Band 15 gives floor 85: one miss (6/7 = 85.71) PASSES and two misses (5/7 = 71.43) RED, so it absorbs exactly one failure and no more. The valid window is [14.29, 28.57) and 15 sits at its honest low end. Tonight cancel-save scored 6/7 = 85.7 percent, so 85 would have passed it. CORRECTING MYSELF: I earlier told this board no defensible band existed at 7 rows; that was wrong and I had invented a second condition the predicate does not contain.

5PR #22909 closes a measured false green — eval-only PRs satisfy the required 'review' check by SKIPPING it, and 53 shipped unreviewed in the last 30 days (18 touching grader code). It is green, formally APPROVED at its exact head, and the decider RESOLVED it, both rungs independently: ship as built. This session cannot land it: ADR-0027 d4 authorises a judged merge on a ruling but still refuses AUTO-merge for .github/*, and main requires the merge queue, so the only mechanical path is the arm d4 refuses. Cost if Gera lands it: about 53 eval-only PRs a month gain a review round, 35 of them dataset-only.

In plain terms. Should Gera land the fix that stops our eval-checking code shipping with a green 'reviewed' tick nobody earned? That happened 53 times last month. The fix is written and approved; it needs Gera's click because changes to that file are deliberately not allowed to merge themselves.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Land it as built
Both decider rungs chose it independently; the row's narrower code-vs-content seam was tested and does not exist, because 111 of 121 dataset files carry their own assert: blocks, so a dataset IS a grader

6The GitHub reviewer's dedicated 5-account pool (claude-pool-reviewer) is weekly-capped, so NO pull request in propflowai can obtain a new review verdict and 'review' is a required check. Measured 2026-10-28T05:20:09Z, and independently re-read from the same file by session propflowai-bf: nana.ai.app 7d=1.0 rejected, propflow.agentsmith 7d=1.0 rejected, propflow.owner 7d=1.0 rejected, propflow.sandbox 7d=1.0 rejected, propflow.operator 7d=0.96 (the repo's entire reviewing capacity); by 07:04Z all five failed the health probe. Last repo-wide reviewer success 06:38:28Z. Job durations are 8-22s, which rules out the known error_max_turns false-positive - a 429 rejects immediately. The run logs report 'resets Nov 2, 1am (UTC)'. The rotation is NOT at fault: com.propflow.reviewer-token-rotate (a SYSTEM LaunchDaemon) ran at 05:20Z, banked 5 tokens, ranked the one healthy account first, and exited 0 - it re-ranks what exists and cannot manufacture headroom. The fleet bank meanwhile has 10 accounts above reserve (propflow.clara 7d=0.0, propflow.lab 0.22, clara@propflowai.co 0.38), and that capacity is unreachable BY YOUR OWN RULING: rotate-reviewer-tokens.sh:557 cites Gera 2026-10-08 'we don't want to share pools but we do want to have the pools somewhere', and :563 says if no pool account answers the run publishes NOTHING rather than fall back to the bank. So restoring the reviewer needs either new paid capacity in claude-pool-reviewer or a reversal of the no-sharing ruling - both Gera's or Fede's, neither a session's.

In plain terms. Does Gera want to buy the code-review robot more accounts, let it borrow from the spare ones for a while, or just wait until its allowance resets? It has used up its weekly allowance on all five of its own accounts, so no new code can get approved at all. There is plenty spare on the other accounts, but Gera decided in October that the reviewer should not share those. This session has measured the cause and will not act on it either way.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Buy more reviewer accounts
It is the only option that both restores the required check and leaves the 2026-10-08 ruling standing. Borrowing from the fleet is free but reverses a decision Gera made on purpose, and needs a code change to the one script deliberately written to refuse exactly that fallback. Waiting it out is survivable - a PR can still merge on a verdict obtained before the onset, proven by #23106 landing at 07:13:58Z - but every PR needing a fresh verdict stops until the reset, and five are already waiting on it.

7Branch 2 of the clara-nightly-evals-green criterion asks that every remaining red eval domain carry a MEASURED catalog floor. Measured against origin/main, a floor is the wrong instrument for 3 of the 4 and the 4th already has one that is already met. (1) maintenance-tools scored 56/2/58 = 96.6% on nightly 40628807564, which is ABOVE its catalog gate of 92.3 (band 8.3) and far above its inForce nightly value of 84.0 - it is red only because evals/run-all.sh grades an implicit 'strict' and never consults the catalog gate. The catalog says so itself in thresholdConflict.note: 'Same config, same day, two verdicts - the systemic case behind four of the seven red domains.' (2) Its floor is not a measured one by its own field: source: 'back-computed-from-existing-floor'. (3) The other three (dashboard-chat-voice aka 'Ask Clara Answer Voice #14060', vendor-po-handling, check-availability-slot-reason) are strict with no floor, at 8, 10 and 38 rows. check-availability-slot-reason's own catalog entry already prescribes the answer: 'if it flaps, add cases rather than lower the floor.' It flapped this run. (4) And an aggregate floor on a small pack is actively unsafe, not merely uninformative: maintenance-tools went 52/3/55 to 56/2/58 - the RATE ROSE while 3 rows were fixed and 2 behaviours were broken, and a peer measured the identical compensating swap the same night (DELINQUENCY 7/8 to 6/8). A rate floor grades the sum and is structurally blind to the swap. All four domains' Nightly-Clara-evals-red issues have been updated with this measurement (#18916, #18912, #21346, #18914). ZERO of the four carry a tracked-gaps row, and one cannot be added until the reviewer outage clears because evals/tracked-gaps.json needs a PR. NOTE: this question was first refused for want of a ledger slot on 2026-10-26T17:52:16Z and so has never been asked of anyone; it is appended here rather than raised, which costs no new page - but b93085657 is an AND-gate, so it now waits on 7 answers.

In plain terms. Does Gera want the nightly test runner to start using the pass mark already written down for each pack of Clara tests, or should the small packs get more test cases instead, or should this session go and measure fresh pass marks first? Right now the runner demands a perfect score and ignores the pass mark we already recorded, so one pack is reported as failing at 96.6% when its own written bar is 92.3. Changing any pass mark is reserved for Fede; making the runner read the one that already exists is not a change to it.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Use each pack's own written pass mark
It is the only option that turns a red into a green with no change to Clara's behaviour, no change to any pass mark, and no new test cases written - maintenance-tools already clears both of the bars written down for it, and is being failed by a grader that never reads them. It also fixes the stated systemic cause behind four of the seven reds in one place instead of domain by domain, which is what the criterion means by checking common cause before per-domain fixes. The other two options are still wanted afterwards: the small packs genuinely need more cases rather than a pass mark, and a pass mark back-computed from the one it replaced should eventually be replaced by a measured one. Neither is what stands between these domains and green tonight.

8A change to Clara's leasing instructions went live today and it fixed something important: when someone asks for a wheelchair-accessible unit, that request now reaches a person every single time, up from almost never (3 in 100). Measured three separate times on the model we actually run, the same change made her worse at a different request: when a resident asks to hold an apartment for them, that now reaches a person about 57 times in 100, down from every time. She records the request but never passes it on, so nobody is told. Nobody has ever decided this trade-off. Should the change stay, or be undone?

In plain terms. Fede or Gera: should the live fix that made Clara reliably pass on wheelchair-access requests stay, even though it made her worse at passing on hold-this-apartment requests? The accessibility side went from almost never reaching a person to always reaching one; the hold side went from always to about six times in ten. Undoing it fixes the second and breaks the first.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Keep it; fix holds next
The two failures are not the same kind of thing. Missing an accessibility request is fair-housing territory; missing a hold request is a service miss. Undoing the change puts the accessibility failure back to 97 in 100 in order to remove the service miss. The new problem also has a known cause (she never passes the request on) so it can be fixed forward, and undoing is itself another live change to production.

9A finished, approved change has been held for three days waiting on one choice, and nobody had been asked. It makes a Clara change fail only on test cases that are NEW, rather than on failures that were already there the night before — today that defect is blocking at least four other changes from merging, because the first change each day burns the single daily test budget on failures nobody caused. The question is how far back to look for 'already there'. The board row asked for last night only. The change instead looks back three nights, and carries the measurement for why: over the real nightly runs of 19 to 25 October, three nights roughly halves the false alarms. Looking back one night is stricter but reds changes for flaky failures they did not cause. Looking back three nights halves that, and in exchange a genuinely new problem can hide behind an older flaky one for up to three days. Which window?

In plain terms. Fede or Gera: should the eval baseline look back three nights or only one? A finished, approved fix has been held three days on that single choice and nobody had been asked. Three nights halves the false alarms that fail a change which did not cause them; one night is stricter but means a genuinely new problem cannot hide behind an older flaky test.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Three nights; release the hold
The three-night figure is measured over real runs rather than chosen, and it halves false alarms. The stricter window has a live cost being paid right now: at least four changes are blocked today by the very problem this fixes, and a change that reds for somebody else's flaky test teaches everyone to ignore the result. The risk accepted is real but bounded and visible — a new problem can hide behind an older flaky one for at most three nights, and the nightly run still reports it separately.

10On one building's thread a prospect asks an explicit plural question for a specific size — 'any 2 bedrooms open at this building? Which units?' — and two identical homes (101 and 102, both 2BR/1BA at $1,400) are genuinely available. Does Clara name one home, or list both? Today she answers the SAME company's question differently by surface: the company-wide line names both, the building thread names one. That divergence is the exact thing eval #13825 exists to catch, and it is red on it now. Either answer needs a clara-leasing.ts change so the two surfaces agree; choosing 'one home' additionally means the pack's company-line row is wrong and its grader needs a redesign. No floor moves either way.

In plain terms. When a renter asks which apartments are open in one building and we have two, should Clara list both or name just one? Right now she lists both if they ask our main line but names only one on that building's own thread, and we need to pick which is right because either way we change what she says.

Answered: List both homes
Decider ruling, not a founder answer: 'TRUTHFUL LIST: the specifics carve-out wins. An explicit plural ask for a named size gets every matching available home (101 and 102). Tighten clara-leasing.ts so a building thread and the company-wide line give the same list.' Appended to this set before the decider had returned; it came back RESOLVED with both option orders agreeing, so it is NOT a founder question and must not hold this AND-gate shut on the other 9. No floor moves under this ruling and the eval pack is unchanged.

11PR #23434 ('measure(evals): the last four red nightly domains measured and left strict, no floor moved [HOLD]') is OPEN, MERGEABLE, unarmed, carrying hold-for-review since 2026-10-29T04:48:22Z. It is the single PR that most advances the dock criterion's one remaining clause: it takes the red domains carrying a tracked-gaps row from 0 of 7 to 4 of 7 (adding rows for building-lookup-one-source, tour-home-property-stamp, turnover-nl-approval and vendor-calling). This session verified its title mechanically: it touches ONLY evals/tracked-gaps.json, evals/tracked-gaps.md and src/lib/evals/catalog.ts — NOT eval-gates.generated.json, NOT run-all.sh, NOT nightly.yml — and the only 'floor:' strings in its catalog diff are inside prose. 39 added lines, 1 removed, all documentation plus 5 gap rows. NO FLOOR IN FORCE CHANGES. Every gap entry it adds says in its own status text 'Tolerated by NO floor'. What it asks Gera to read is the ARITHMETIC for why no floor is defensible at these sample sizes (e.g. building-lookup: the doctrine band yields a NEGATIVE number, and the narrowest possible band yields 25.0, which would tolerate 3 of 4 rows). This session is not lifting the hold: dropping that label merges the PR, and it is never the authoring side's to drop. One honest caveat — the label was applied under 'gera-propflow', which is a SHARED FLEET CREDENTIAL used by sessions, so this session cannot tell from it whether a founder asked for this hold or a session set it pending Gera's read.

In plain terms. Does Gera want the mini to merge the write-up of why four failing test areas should stay strict instead of getting an easier passing bar? It changes no bar anywhere — this session checked the files, not just the title — it only writes down what was measured and which gaps we are knowingly living with. It is held waiting on Gera to read the maths, and it is the last big piece of the goal he set for this board.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Lift the hold, let it merge
It changes no bar anywhere — verified by file list, not by its title — so the thing reserved for a founder is not actually in the diff; what is in the diff is five written-down known gaps and the measurements behind them, which is the disposition Gera would want either way. Holding it costs the criterion's last clause: four of the seven red domains have no tracked-gaps row on main and all four gain one here. If Gera disagrees with any floor reasoning later, nothing has been applied, so there is nothing to undo.

12When a renter EXPLICITLY asks 'which units?' / 'which ones?', should Clara name every matching open home, or name one and stop? Her prompt currently says both: 'ONE MEANS ONE: never a second home' (added 10-28 by #23128/#23138, protecting a real Willows incident) and, still live and untouched in the same prompt, 'IF THEY EXPLICITLY ASK FOR SPECIFICS... answer honestly from the tool result... NEVER refuse data they directly request.' Today she is inconsistent by scope: asked company-wide she names both units and that eval passes 13/13, but asked within one building she names only one, and that eval went red for the first time on 10-29. An eval cannot settle this - it is a decision about what Clara says. Unprompted offers stay at one home either way.

In plain terms. When a renter asks Clara point blank which apartments are open, should she name all of them, or just one? She has two instructions that disagree - one says never mention a second apartment, the other says never refuse information somebody directly asks for - and right now she answers differently depending on whether they ask about the whole company or about one building. Either way she still offers just one apartment when nobody asked.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Every open home when asked which ones
Your standing rule is never hide data we have, and a renter who asks which units and gets one is refused data we hold; ONE MEANS ONE was written for UNPROMPTED offers, which this leaves fully intact, so it states a scope rather than weakening the rule.

13Every measured eval floor this dock produced is now written, reviewed and green across three held PRs, all waiting on the same call: how many Clara misses a merge gate may tolerate. #23848 holds four floors measured over 19-21 scheduled nightlies (leasing-specials 72, tour-alternatives-reply 66, check-availability-slot-reason 92.5, kb-fee-authority 87), each with its population breaks named, plus three tracked-gaps rows; two domains were REFUSED a floor on the evidence and say so (tenant-resident-services-off at n=2, tour-home-property-stamp on a 3-case pack). #22343 holds renewals 95.0 and maintenance-tools 86.7 plus ten fringe domains measured and left strict. #23349 retires the voice-closing pack and its nightly floor of 9. Until one of these lands, eight of ten red domains are gated at strict, which is a zero-failure bar: one flipped row of 89 reds the whole night, so the nightly cannot tell a real regression from noise. Today only #23848 can actually land - the other two conflict with main and a release click on them would land nothing; a lane is making them mergeable now without touching any threshold value.

In plain terms. Can our nightly Clara test have a realistic pass mark instead of needing a perfect score? Today one slipped answer fails the whole run, so it cannot tell a real problem from normal variation, and we measured a fair mark for each test from three weeks of real runs.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Set every measured pass mark
It is one risk-appetite question, and asking it three times is how the nightly stayed at a pass-everything bar for a month; each mark sits at that test's own worst real result, so none tolerates a night worse than one already seen.

14The maintenance-tools floor on held PR #22343 has drifted out of step with its own arithmetic, and this makes a question refused on 2026-10-26 for want of a ledger slot answerable rather than moot. The pack grew to 61 rows (the branch declared 56; re-derived with the repo's own rowCount post-#23909, positive controls kb-fee-authority 16 / building-lookup-one-source 4 / dashboard-chat-voice 9 matching the docstring, negative control an absent pack = null). At 61 rows the domain's own stated method - lowest observed 94.0 minus the smallest whole-case band - yields 87.44, not the 86.7 the PR records. Verified arithmetic: 53/61 = 86.885% PASSES 86.7 and FAILS 87.4; 54/61 = 88.525% passes both; 52/61 = 85.246% fails both. So the recorded floor tolerates EIGHT misses where its own method derives SEVEN, and the old note claiming nothing achievable lies between the two is now false and is retracted in place on the PR. The delta is exactly one case. No floor was moved by any lane - renewals stays 95 and maintenance-tools stays 86.7 - because the value is a founder's. SEQUENCING: these are not three independent clicks. Measured with git merge-tree, #22343 and #23848 each re-dirty the OTHER on one generated line (tracked-gaps.md's header count), and #23984 dirties both. Land one, let the lane re-resolve the next, then click again.

In plain terms. Should a maintenance test's pass mark stay at 86.7, move to 87.4, or go away entirely? Gera or Fede picks; this session will not touch the number either way. The pack grew, so the method we used now gives 87.4 instead of the 86.7 written on the change, and the difference is exactly one test case.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Re-derive to 87.4
87.4 is what this domain's own method yields at today's row count, and holding 86.7 means the recorded floor and the recorded derivation disagree by one case - which is the false-guarantee shape this dock keeps finding, a number carrying a rationale that no longer produces it.

15#23990 is reviewed clean TWICE with zero findings in both rounds, MERGEABLE, and blocked only by a hold-for-review label the docs-only fence applied itself - not a person. It corrects docs/runbooks/testing-locally.md, which currently tells every reader that CI runs unit tests on EVERY PR push 'armed or not' and quotes a ci.yml sentence that returns ZERO hits in that file (positive control: 'decide-test-lane' returns 13 hits in the same file). The live decider says the opposite at the very lines the runbook cites - scripts/ci/decide-test-lane.sh G9 emits RUN_LANE=false for an unarmed PR, executed and confirmed both arms - because tests-at-open (#23661) was REVERTED the same day by #23845. The PR also adds a drift test that reds when the runbook and the decider disagree, so the sentence cannot rot a third time, and that test is in the repo-wide selected set by name (1071 files, positive control present). Planted arm exit 1, clean arm exit 0 at the exact merge head. WHY THIS NEEDS A FOUNDER AND NOT ME: the fence's own notice says 'The hold-for-review still on this PR is this fence's, not a person's' and then reserves its release - 'Released by: a founder (Fede or Gera), in one click, once this PR is otherwise green. Nothing automatic removes it.' Global CLAUDE.md says a bot-applied hold on driven work is the driver's to lift, so the two rules genuinely conflict here; I am treating the fence's specific, thrice-stated reservation as beating the general rule, and an agent lane lifted this same fence's hold on another PR earlier today, which is the incident I do not want to repeat. The status carries [review passed], so removing the label restores the pass and pr-autoqueue arms it.

In plain terms. Can Fede or Gera remove one label from the change that fixes our testing guide, so it can go in? The guide currently tells people their tests ran when nothing ran; this corrects it and adds a check so it cannot happen again, and it is reviewed clean twice. A robot added the label and that robot's own rules say only a founder may take it off.
Why the raiser recommends it
The session raising this recommends: Remove the label
The PR's whole content is a correction to a false statement about CI that is currently misleading every reader of that runbook, it is reviewed clean twice with zero findings, and the condition the fence named is gone - the fence's own notice says the docs-only claim is withdrawn and the hold is releasable.
Why, and what was tried
Model receiptFABLE was asked, and escalated. Receipt fa92b2593 — NEEDS HUMAN.
The dock's own acceptance criterion reserves any floor change for Fede by name — a risk-appetite call on how many Clara misses a merge gate tolerates. No reading can produce Fede's verdict. The useful action is to put the ask in front of Fede now, made cheap: both new sweep floors are at-or-tighter than floors already in force on sibling lanes (renewals 95.0 equals nightly and renewal-evals; maintenance-tools 86.7 is tighter than nightly's 84.0, which traces to no sample), each tolerated miss carries a tracked-gaps row, and a clean 🟢 APPROVED sits at the exact head.

(one pass said so.)

ed118fcd is parked on this.

Answered and withdrawn (4)
Pick an option above, then press Done.
PropFlow Docs