Planen er dokumentet operatøren følger onsdag under tidspress. Den instruerte
fortsatt om en beslutning som ble felt 08-10, og på TO steder — nøyaktig
drift-klassen der en retting i én fil etterlater den i en annen:
- §0 S1.c-raden: «tag v1.0.0 på begge remotes» → taggen går til `origin` ALENE.
Felt med målingen som felte den (open/main = 520e741 = v0.1.0; 26 commits =
53 filer / 6087 innsettelser; seks plandokument-beslutninger, én åpen sak +
fire aldri vurdert). Amendert i stedet for omskrevet, per §6-mønsteret.
- P4 pkt. 1s fresh-clone-notat: «publisering dit er S1.c onsdag» → korrigert,
flyttet til P5-vinduet.
Bokføring i samme pass (planens egen regel, linje 10):
- P2/S1.b ☐ → ✔ (2026-08-09, c255662), både overskrift og Spor 1-tabellen;
JA-varianten i ærlighets-teksten markert som den som gjelder.
- Kalenderen: man 10. = tre økter (var: kun generalprøven) · tir 11. = P3 er
gjort søndag, tirsdag er commons-svaret eller tom · ons 12. = frysesekvensen
i rekkefølge, med distinkt-tellingen (8, ikke 9) og taggen sist.
«ETT trekk» på tag-dagen er MÅLT inn i dokumentet, ikke antatt: `## [Unreleased]`
er verbatim og unik (1 treff, kun to `## `-overskrifter), ingen link-refs å
følge med. Sto den to steder, ble frysedagens ene trekk improvisasjon.
Null kodeendring; ingen test rørt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QLpSfvCgBLmc3tPRMnr1JA
Forskuttert fra onsdag kveld, fordi den delen ikke er frys-gatet: kun taggen er.
Raden bærer nå de tre tingene målingen avgjorde — hvorfor overskriften står på
[Unreleased], hvorfor uv lock måtte kjøres eksplisitt og diffes før noen test, og
at fire versjonssteder ER alle fire.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ue1AnPZYsC9Tk7e5Tyv8Fv
Prøven kjørte mot LEVERT VEGLYS-FV-SOER, ikke den forankrede reserven planen
forutsatte: P3 falt to døgn før fristen, så prøven målte demoinnholdet selv.
Det er en strengere prøve enn planlagt — reserven validerer mekanikk, aldri
presentasjon — og reserve-stien er fortsatt målt, i suiten.
Alt grønt, null kodeendring: golden-diffen tom for begge kjøringene, K6
selv-identitet tom på stdout med kun po-sim-suffikset ulikt på stderr,
810 passed / 4 skipped, ruff og mypy rene, goldens uendret.
Ett avvik, og det ligger i kriteriets bokstav: §5 pkt. 1 teller
`grep -cE "^ *Steg [1-8]"` = 8, men P1/S1.a ga Steg 7 to merkede linjer, én
per tidsskala, så tellingen gir 9. Åtte distinkte steg står — intensjonen er
oppfylt. Kriteriet rettes ikke her: en gate justert i samme økt som den
feiler er ikke lenger en gate. Onsdagens generalprøve ×2 bruker
distinkt-tellingen, og §5 pkt. 1 rettes etter frysen.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ATCeqRyvdL9qmk34o6HUCa
Planens §3 sa at `ingest.materialize` er repoets ENE skrivepunkt på Door A, og
det premisset ble felt av måling FØR bygging: `materialize` er en ren delegasjon
til pinnet llm_ingestion_okf v0.3.2s `materialize_bundle`, som stager i minnet og
utfører sin egen disk-fase. Det finnes ingen callback mellom de to, så en gate
plassert der kunne bare kjørt ETTER at bytene landet — en opprydding, ikke en gate.
Sømmen ble i stedet kopier bundelen → materialiser inn i kopien → skann det som
ble generert → publiser eller forkast. Kopien er bærende, ikke bekvemmelighet:
bibliotekets §3 eierskaps-skann, kollisjonsgaten mot kuratert innhold og §6
index-merge leser alle den EKSISTERENDE bundelen. Staging i tom katalog mister
alle tre og publiserer en bundle uten kuraterte naboer — datatap forkledd som
sikkerhetsfiks.
De fire §4-beslutningene, tatt og målt: (1) ingen av guardens to preset —
Origin.EXTERNAL/AUTOMATIC, fordi trust_for utleder policy fra origin alene og
PRESET_USER_UPLOAD bærer en quarantine-semantikk Door A ikke har; (2) utfall per
BUNDLE, diagnostikk per DOKUMENT — delvis publisering ville etterlatt bundle +
index som svarer til intet manifest, men import_bundle itererer forbi første
avvisning; (3) Report til log.md, aldri konsept-frontmatter, der fire golden-suiter
pinner bytene; (4) mypy-override OG adapter, siden override alene gjør sømmen
type-blind i stedet for type-sikker.
`materialize` forblir ugatet med vilje — goldenene pinner den, og en kaller som
vil ha gaten ber om den ved navn.
Fem mutasjoner alle røde + grønn kontroll (hele suiten, ~120 s hver): detach
gaten · la den fyre ETTER publisering · Origin.INTERNAL · tom staging-katalog ·
rapporter kun første avvisning.
Målingen felte en VAKUØS test først: en hard injeksjon scorer fail_secure under
BEGGE trust-tierene, så Origin.INTERNAL-mutasjonen lot alle tre avvisningstestene
stå grønne — beslutning 1 så dekket ut uten å være testet. Båndet der tieren
faktisk avgjør er høy-entropi-innhold (quarantine_review vs warn), og testen ble
skrevet mot nøyaktig det før mutasjonen ble re-målt. Mutasjon 4 ble på sin side
felt av KUN én test; 809 andre merket ikke at bundle-kopien forsvant.
Laveste disposition er `warn`, ikke `allow` — `allow` finnes ikke i guarden. En
gate skrevet mot == allow ville avvist hvert dokument som noensinne ingestes.
Kriterium 5 står: demo-stdout er byte-identisk med tests/golden/demo-transcript.stdout,
målt både i suiten og ved eksplisitt kjøring. shared/ er urørt.
801 -> 810 passed / 4 skipped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01DDu94KoyxAmhJsG2n63X8Q
Kriterium 6 er selv-identitet: to kjøringer av en regredert demo er like enige som
to av en riktig. Fasiten forlater derfor prosessen. stdout pinnes ORDRETT (og er
dermed demoens abortsti); stderr normaliseres på nøyaktig to MÅLTE miljø-spann —
site-packages-prefikset og temp-katalogen — med po-sim- holdt synlig, fordi det er
en egenskap ved programmet og ikke ved miljøet. Pinnet stderr = fire linjer.
Kontrollen som forbyr at masken vokser er load-bearing: en droppende normaliserer
med fasiten regenerert under seg holder BEGGE likhets-testene grønne.
Pkt. 4: planens forhåndsskrevne frø-setning sa «én av de TO tidligere dommene».
Målt mot levert VEGLYS-bundle henter Kjøring B TRE — én fulgte med kunnskapsbasen,
to er demoens egne, én per tidsskala. Splitten avledes derfor fra kjøringen; en
håndskrevet «én av tre» ville vært den andre kopien som drifter.
Fem mutasjoner alle røde + grønn kontroll (hele suiten hver gang): ett byte i en
stdout-linje · detach dempingen · over-normaliser stderr · literal splitt · detach
frø-setningens print. Byte- og detach-mutasjonene ble fanget av KUN golden-testen;
den literale splitten av KUN skille-testen.
793 -> 801 passed / 4 skipped.
Abortstien fulgt i rekkefølge, kriterium 8 målt to uavhengige veier, ingen reset.
Måletallene som avgjorde: P90 = 1 769 915, overdrivelsen 2 100 000 over begge terskler,
10 %-prøven mot LEVERT baseline feller i stage 0. Fem mutasjoner røde.
Planteksten slik den sto før utførelse er beholdt i en <details>-blokk — NO-GO-grenen er
død tekst nå, men reserven er fortsatt abortstien og skal kunne leses.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BUjfw4eJdwwnqHSXhfcY6i
Punkt 5 (entry points), 2 (stderr) og 1 (fresh-clone) er merket ✔ med en UTFØRT-blokk
som bærer beslutningen og belegget, ikke bare utfallet.
Punkt 2 var øktas åpne beslutning, og den ble avgjort ved måling framfor preferanse:
rund-taks-linjene dempes, ExperimentalWarning-paret gjør det ikke — de fyrer før
simulation i det hele tatt importeres, så demping ville krevd et warnings-filter inne
i bibliotekpakken.
Punkt 3 får en konsekvens fra fresh-clone-målingen: fasiten kan ikke være literal.
De to gjenstående stderr-linjene bærer en absolutt sti inn i site-packages, som er
ulik i klon og arbeidskopi — normaliser på BÅDE den og po-sim-suffikset. Pinnet
stderr blir fire linjer, ikke to.
[skip-docs]
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01C2bxLcCRguxXzpM4priTMn
The validator can reconcile a proposal against the project's actual cost lines
(S4.0 stage 0), but only when the knowledge base ships a cost-baseline.json —
and no bundle under shared/ has one. So on stage the gate reasoned only about
numbers the proposal supplied itself.
The reserve can never receive the file in shared/ (pull-only subtree, and demo
criterion 8 requires the goldens byte-unchanged). That is a placement
constraint, not an impossibility: materialize_anchored_bundle copies the bundle
and adds the file outside shared/, and the run path reads it through exactly
the seam a delivered bundle would use.
The baseline is DERIVED IN CODE from the scripted register, never typed beside
it — two sources of the same numbers drift, and drift is precisely what the
10 % probe models. On GO day the direction reverses (plan P3 b). Both scripted
replies must state the same cost lines or ValueError: were they to differ,
hypothesis #1 would be falsified by stage 0 instead of by P90 — the same
REJECTED line on screen, a different mechanism behind it.
10 % probe, measured: baseline x 1.10 -> FORKASTET at stage 0, before the
solver; corrected -> FORESLÅTT. Criterion 6 re-measured (stdout byte-identical
across two runs); stderr unchanged at 6 lines. The ONLY diff against the
un-anchored demo is the new KUNNSKAPSBASE block — everything else is
byte-identical, which is the problem: an anchoring nobody can see is one nobody
can check. Hence it is printed, and hence `provenance` is a required argument.
769 -> 775 passed.
Five mutations red + green control. The measurement failed the TEST first:
"ingen kostbaseline erklært" CONTAINS "kostbaseline erklært", and
ENERGI-TOTAL-EL already appears in the Step-2 line, so both assertions survived
the detach mutation. The two branches now share no wording.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GD6Y2Y23NZZxPYtSRoCmst
The Step-7 trace line said "lang fil-løkke" while the verdict arrived as a
function argument (`verdict_input`) — the short, in-run capture. The long loop
was tested but never exercised by the thing on stage.
An expert now drops a real verdict FILE (`write_verdict`) into an inbox between
the runs, and Run B is given `verdict_dir=`, so `run_project` merges it into the
store before the Step-1 fold.
Not done as the plan point was worded, and the difference is load-bearing:
routing the PERSONA verdict through the inbox would have put ONE marker on two
paths — Step 7 (inbox) and Step 8 (promotion) both end in Run B's prompt, so
either could carry it alone and `test_simulation_loadbearing.py`'s promotion
assertion would have stayed green with promotion detached. A second verdict with
its own marker keeps both seams independently red-able; `simulate_learning_loop`
raises when the two markers are equal. The inbox sits beside the bundle copy,
never inside it, and the id is an explicit sentinel (a minted id would collide
with the promoted verdict's, and `VerdictStore.add` is first-write-wins).
766 -> 769 passed (773 collected). Criterion 6 re-measured: stdout byte-identical
across two runs; stderr unchanged at 6 lines. Mutations measured against the full
suite, four red + a green control: detach `verdict_dir=` · point Run B at an empty
folder while the file is still written · marker set to `realization_rate: 0.82`
(measured present in the verdict seed) · marker set to `energy performance gap`
(measured present in a navigated concept file) · benign rename of the inbox dir.
Honesty limit found while measuring: the last two mutations fell on the causality
assertion, not the Run A control — generation prompts carry the debate output, not
the bundle context. The pair holds, but each assert defends a different property.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVYDeJ9evZicgU5r3roZVW
I1: Funn 1 was measured one directory wide; the repo ships a working S4.0
baseline fixture and run.py:516 reads it. The anchored dry-run + the 10%%
deviation test move from Tuesday to the weekend (P4 pt 0); Tuesday becomes a
re-measurement with an explicit abort path (I4: pre-pull hash, reset rule,
18:00 NO-GO). I2: stderr damping decided YES, in the weekend BEFORE pinning —
measured today stderr is six lines, one deliberately non-deterministic. I3:
[project.scripts] moves off freeze day to before the fresh-clone measurement.
I5: a demo runbook post (P4.5) at the freeze. I6: every §4 claim re-measured
today on HEAD bb3df79; the 08-09 datings were commits from 2026-08-06.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UDHSsyMuBASJcRapddciHL
Operator directive: full week available, weekend included, new quota,
high priority. The calendar now starts Friday with P1, pulls the whole
P4 advance (fresh-clone criterion, golden transcript, stderr muting,
both honesty sentences) into the weekend against the micro reserve, and
makes Monday dress rehearsal #0 — the NO-GO outcome is fully verified
BEFORE Tuesday's GO gate, leaving Tuesday/Wednesday thin: pull+measure,
re-measure, freeze, release cut, tag.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019xhQpH4oQBaf8dxCkXuB8Z
Operator decision 2026-08-09. Track 1 (complete v1, incl. other repos):
S1.a = P1 step-7 inbox, S1.b = P2 content gate, S1.c = release cut
(1.0.0 synced in four places, CHANGELOG, [project.scripts] moved in from
P9, tag only AFTER a green dress rehearsal). Other-repo accounting is
measured: commons already ordered with the Tuesday deadline and a
reserve, okf/guard/po-claude need nothing — no new coord message. Each
post carries a named degradation so v1 stays honestly complete at every
level. Track 2 (convincing demo): P3 + P4 + rehearsal + one spoken
mandate sentence, optional stderr-noise muting before the freeze. The
O4-vs-tag conflict is flagged for the operator, not decided.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019xhQpH4oQBaf8dxCkXuB8Z
Fable-review 2026-08-09 made durable: P1-P10 in plain language with the
commands behind every number (evidence table §4). Pre-demo: step-7 inbox
wired into the walkthrough (P1), Spor B sharpening (P2), the stage-0
first-contact check on Tuesday's GO (P3), fresh-clone/stderr/golden
criteria plus two honesty sentences on Wednesday (P4). Post-demo: CLI
portfolio cap (P6), one consolidated commons amendment (P7), method
skill [Voyage] (P8), and an explicit NULL for orchestration swaps (P10).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019xhQpH4oQBaf8dxCkXuB8Z
A prompt that lives only in a conversation dies at /clear, so it goes in the repo.
Three tracks, in the order the operator weighted them: the MAF feature set, the demo, and -- as
the actual deliverable rather than an appendix -- a ranked list of what the week's quota should
buy. Each item carries a mechanism, a hard [FØR TORSDAG]/[ETTER DEMOEN] tag, a cost in SESSIONS
rather than hours, and what would go red if the item were done. An item nothing can falsify is an
opinion, not a finding.
The measured starting points are embedded so the session does not re-derive them wrongly: two
debate agents rather than three, one orchestration in use out of the installed surface, a
hand-rolled portfolio fan-out, and a capability map organised by NEED that therefore never
compares TOPOLOGIES. The map is not stale on version -- 1.9.0/1.0.0 is what is installed -- which
matters, because "the map is old" would be the easy wrong conclusion.
The prompt carries its own discipline because Fable runs without an advisor: every figure must be
produced by a command shown beside it, and premises in STATE and in plan documents are named as
premises. This repo has measured at least three of them wrong, most recently today.
It is also forbidden from smuggling feature work in front of the demo. The demo is a hard date;
the feature set is not. Arguing otherwise is allowed -- but only out loud, with the consequence
spelled out.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
The demo shows "download and run". Implying you can point this at your own sources and build a
knowledge base claims three things the code does not carry -- and A5 (the code may not claim more
than it does) binds the presenter too, not just the source.
Measured first, and one measurement changed the plan: the guard is NOT v0.2 alpha. That figure came
from our own 2026-07-16 inclusion plan, which is a premise rather than a fact. It is v0.3.4, seven
published tags, `dependencies = []` -- stdlib only. Our okf pin (v0.3.2) declares no dependencies
either, so the guard is not coupled to it, and the 0.3.5-vs-0.4.0 release argument concerns the
release AFTER v0.3.4. Adoption moved from risky to tractable on that one reading.
The three claims, made precise: the demo bundle was hand-curated (honesty), the ingest path writes
unscanned (buildable), and the generic bundle factory does not exist (deferred at O1, not buildable
in four days). Two close with code, one with a sentence.
The two tracks are separated on a measured fact: `simulation.py` does not import `ingest`, so Door A
work cannot disturb what Wednesday freezes. Criterion 5 is the one that proves it -- the walkthrough
must stay byte-identical.
Four decisions are named as decisions rather than settled silently: which policy preset, fail-closed
versus flag-and-write, where the guard's report lands in provenance, and keeping `--strict`
meaningful across a seam that ships no py.typed. The honesty paragraph is written in BOTH variants
up front, so Wednesday is an observation and not a judgement call on stage.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
generate_via_llm consumed each validator Rejection internally (`last`), fed it into the
next attempt's prompt, and dropped it. So Step 5 was real but unobservable: a caller could
see THAT a proposal validated, never that it validated on attempt 2 after the deterministic
validator falsified attempt 1. It was the one step of the eight with no output to show.
The seam is a typed return value -- GenerationResult(outcome, refinements) -- rather than an
out-parameter or a callback: a returned value cannot be silently lost by a caller that forgets
to pass a collector, and mypy forces every call site to acknowledge it.
refinements carries ONLY rejections that were actually fed back. When the attempt budget runs
out the final rejection IS outcome; counting it here would be double-counting, and the bounded
control test goes red on the collect-everything implementation that gets this wrong.
The loop's bound is untouched: max_attempts and meter.tick_round stand, and `last` still drives
the prompt alone, so prompt growth is unchanged. run.py accumulates across _evaluate calls, so
_evaluate_mandate is untouched; RunResult.refinements defaults (the coverage precedent) and is
concatenated across approaches rather than keyed per approach -- stated as an honesty limit.
The simulation now shows it: the scripted proposer overclaims 250000, which the validator
falsifies against P90 = 90000, and the corrected 30000 validates. Only the overclaim is
scripted -- the rejection is computed. scripted_factory takes a per-role reply selector so this
needs no second scripted client body.
README records the two accuracy changes only (Step 5 is now inspectable; the simulation trace
shows the correction). The level-2 publishing claim stays deferred until after the demo (O4).
Load-bearing MEASURED against the full suite with a control, four mutations all red:
detach the returned history (4 tests) - collect-everything (control only) - detach the run
wiring (2 tests) - revert the simulation's proposer to a constant (the demo-protection test).
Control: 759 passed / 4 skipped; ruff, format and mypy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017CcWFcREUi6YPjEpN3ACDP
Seven of the eight steps already have their data in RunResult and need a print;
one does not exist at all. Putting that distinction in a table is the point of
this plan -- it turns "show all eight steps" from an unbounded week into one
build on Friday and presentation work over the weekend.
The go/no-go on Tuesday is deliberate. The content is being built in another
repo on a deadline nobody here controls, so the week is designed to survive it
not arriving rather than to hope it does. The content-keyed reply selector
lands Monday, before the content, for the same reason: a new project should
then be a data entry rather than a hand-written script under time pressure.
Honesty framing is section 1 rather than a footnote, because the demo's own
subject is a system that refuses to claim more than it proves.
The 20 claims went un-corrected, so they stand as confirmed. What the operator
actually decided were the four choices the QA exposed: hand-built example with
the factory path explicitly deferred, step 5 built and shown live, commons
ordered with a fallback, README after the demo rather than before.
Two measurements are recorded because they bound the order, not because they
are interesting: bundle_context renders every navigated file's full body, and
summary-first reading is not built -- so the full 15-30 measure library would
put 40-90k characters into every hypothesis prompt. The order is size-capped
for that reason and says so.
Also recorded: simulate_learning_loop already takes the bundle directory as a
parameter, so new content plugs into an existing seam. The cost is the scripted
replies, which are written against the LED case.
The demo-week brief was written by a session that read its way to the
intention through documents other sessions had written. Two of its frames
were overturned by the primary sources inside one conversation, so the
operator stopped planning and commissioned this: read the primary sources
directly, state the understanding back as numbered claims, and capture the
corrections where they survive.
Six gaps in the picture the brief rests on, all measured rather than argued:
- The intention has a SECOND axis that STATE's list of five primary sources
never named. review-2026-07 (F1-F14) and sesjonsplan-fase2-6 (S2.0-S5.4,
D-A-D-I, M1-M3) are where most of the repo's 31 modules come from: 20
S-numbers, 18 with hits in src/+tests/. A plan written from the five named
sources alone would describe a repo with eight steps and miss two thirds
of what is there.
- D-H's DECIDED demo path ("clone -> unzip -> factory builds -> loop runs")
is factory-dependent, and the factory (D-G/T0, `okf-toolkit`) does not
exist -- measured, not assumed. The brief's "anyone who downloads the repo
can run exactly the same" IS that path.
- The realistic example's content model is already decided (D-F): knowledge
types with required source citation, strict separation from the verdicts.
The commission to commons must reference it, not invent one.
- The demo is the programme's level-2 publishing proof (D-I), with an
honesty ceiling agreed in advance and a README update as its consequence.
- The shared spec covers the loop + ingest and NONE of the surplus: mandate,
notify, ledger, value report, cost simulation, dimension, portfolio
budget, concurrency, preflight all measure 0 mentions. The comparison is
therefore of the SPEC'd core, not of this repo.
- Step 5 is not a presentation-layer concern: `generate_via_llm` consumes
the intermediate rejection internally, and today's demo validates on the
first attempt, so the refinement never triggers. Steps 2 and 6 ARE
printable from data RunResult already carries.
Two inventory numbers spot-checked independently (759 collected; the offline
simulation re-run, output identical). Nothing here is sourced from STATE.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvjgY5NBg16D7kgQf14s6B
Ran `repo-standard` (v0.1.1, class `standalone`) and fixed everything it
flagged as ERROR, plus the WARN links that were genuinely dead.
README first screen:
- opening line is now byte-identical to the forge description, so
description == catalog == README is machine-checkable (badges moved below).
- `## Install` (required for class `standalone`): clone + `uv sync`, stated as
clone-only because the shared spec, persona skill and example bundles under
`shared/` are read from the working tree at run time. `uv run pytest` named as
the verification, with the fact that no CI runner exists said out loud rather
than implied by a badge.
- `## Non-goals` (required): the five limits already binding in CLAUDE.md —
not a compliance product, not a portfolio-level reallocator, not autonomous
decision-making, not turnkey, not a model benchmark.
Dead relative links (measured, not guessed):
- `docs/plan/2026-07-10-sesjonsplan-fase2-6.md` pointed at
`../2026-07-14-revisjonspakke-DF-DI.md` six times; the file sits in
`docs/plan/`, not `docs/`. (The sibling `../review-2026-07.md` links are
correct and untouched.)
- the Fase-1 spike brief linked repo-root-relative from
`.claude/projects/…/`; re-anchored with `../../../`.
The one remaining README ERROR was a gate false positive: `checkInternalLinks`
resolves targets against `git ls-files`, which lists files only, so a link to a
directory can never resolve. `[shared/](shared/)` now points at
`shared/README.md` — a better target anyway, since that file carries the
pull-only subtree rule. Not fixed here: the classifier lives in another repo.
Remaining WARNs are all inside `shared/`, deliberately untouched: it is a
pull-only commons subtree, and the nav-golden files are byte-level fixtures
that gate `test_nav_golden_*` — four of them are OKF bundle-internal links,
and the `/etc/passwd` ones are the negative escape fixture doing its job.
Suite green: 630 passed, 4 skipped (markdown-only diff; no test touched).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ri3aVJPfynCZtHRhesCzUH
Map untrusted-ingest surface (ingest.materialize http/I6, verdict-inbox
load, promote_verdict, future received-bundle) vs first-party paths;
verdict = planned, wire scan/sanitize before M3 as S2.4/S2.5 extension.
Plan only — guard not wired. shared/ hardening owned by commons session.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0145ZKPLMVeqM47z2jxxokym
Operatørkorreksjon 2026-07-04: §Rammer sa «Fable 5 med xhigh — global default»
(scoped bort fra 2026-07-02-planens Opus-direktiv). Reverseres: Opus 4.8 xhigh
for ALLE økter og alle subagenter, ingen Fable 5 — matcher den globale regelen
(~/.claude/CLAUDE.md, «Modellvalg for subagenter»). Kun plandokumentet endret;
I6-arbeidets untracked-filer urørt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017MM6BWb1hWmJZuXFZ7rjxT
Program-planleggingssesjon per brief 2026-07-03: alle brief-premisser
verifisert mot ground truth (retrieval-forbudet sitert ordrett), planen
adversarial-reviewet x2 (2 blockere + 8 majors innarbeidet: verdict-lag-
reservasjon, lag-separasjon ved re-ingest, deterministisk timestamp,
guard-dekning, D7/HTTP-ærlighet, gatede spec-endringer). I1 er GATET på
operatør-godkjenning av målbildet. Kun dokumenter — ingen kode-, shared-
eller søskenrepo-endring; suite 157/4 grønn.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi
Brief (ikke plan) for nytt program etter S11: ingest-steg som materialiserer
kildeuttrekk til OKF-bundles (metode-spec forbyr query-time retrieval i løkka),
delt manifest-kontrakt i commons, referanseimplementasjon per stack.
Inkluderer oppstartsprompt for planleggingssesjonen.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QdSfQdND84oeq2mbjueLTS
Defines the S11 yardstick BEFORE either stack exists: pinned commons-ref
as identical input, metrics M1-M4, the verbatim liveness-asymmetry
declaration, five binding LLM non-determinism rules for S10/S11, and a
ban on comparing offline numbers with live numbers.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi
Nordstjerne fra design-samtale 2026-06-26. Konsoliderer: 8-stegs sverm-loop,
trelagsmodell (OKF-kontekst/output-inbox/promoteringsgate), to feedback-
tidsskalaer (kort synkron + lang fil-basert/gjenopptakbar), OKF/LLM-Wiki
datagrunnlag (web-verifisert mot Google knowledge-catalog), den samlende
diagnosen (tilbakemelding-inn-i-prompt-dataflyt mangler 3 steder), invarianter,
testbar "ferdig", delt eksempel for begge repo, fase-nedbrytning. 2 Mermaid-
diagrammer. STATE peker hit. R1 besluttet (shared/-dir nå). Domene lener mot
energieffektivisering (lærings-overflate > FinOps' for-deterministiske kjerne).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019any9zfGNNwWJPX5Zq2QRz
Privat MS-tenant tilgjengelig men kostnadstak: lokal profil default i
utvikling, Foundry/Azure kun målrettet/minimal, ingen tunge test-kjøringer.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01H9FyyENxebxVThjrn9et8C
