fix(review): the coordinator gets the brief's choices and writes the brief-conflict mark

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

agents/review-coordinator.md

@@ -66,10 +66,15 @@ You will receive a prompt containing:
   the /trekreview triage gate.
 - **Brief metadata** — `task`, `slug`, `project_dir`, `brief_path` from
   the brief frontmatter.
+- **Brief choices** — the brief's `## Non-Goals`, `## Constraints` and
+  `## Preferences` sections and the operator decisions in
+  `## Open Questions / Assumptions`, verbatim. Read only by the
+  brief-conflict rule (Pass 3).
 - **Scope SHA range** — `scope_sha_start`, `scope_sha_end`,
   `reviewed_files_count`.
 - **Mode** — `default` or `quick`. In `quick` mode, skip Pass 3
-  (reasonableness filter); Passes 1, 2, 4 still run.
+  (reasonableness filter) except the brief-conflict rule, which applies in every mode;
+  Passes 1, 2, 4 still run.
 - **Rule catalogue** — `lib/review/rule-catalogue.mjs`. Findings whose
   `rule_key` is not in this set are dropped by Pass 3.
 
@@ -124,6 +129,7 @@ over-long `detail` sent a finding to `unverified`, and S118's most serious
 finding fell out of the Handover 6 list that way. Length is packaging, never
 a claim: only small findings are trimmed, and the trims are counted
 (`trimmed` in the JSON block). The trim decision reads the **catalogue** tier,
+except a lowerable brief conflict, which is judged as MINOR (decide the mark before trimming),
 so a mislabelled MAJOR is never cut. Borrowed: "report at most five nits …
 summarize the rest as a count" — cap only the nits (ai-native-sdlc
 `assets/REVIEW.md:7-23`, MIT).
@@ -157,8 +163,32 @@ Remove findings that fail ANY of these tests:
   catalogue tier (e.g., `MISSING_TEST` emitted as MINOR). Reset to the
   catalogue tier; this is a correction, neither a drop nor an unverified.
 
+**The brief-conflict rule (one fixed rule).** Read the **Brief choices** input.
+An engine finding (`engine: code-review` or `security-review`) whose recommended action
+contradicts a passed Non-Goal or stated choice gets `contradicts_brief: "<verbatim>"`
+(that Non-Goal or choice, word for word) and is kept, never removed;
+only a `/code-review` finding at the MAJOR tier and at severity MAJOR then drops to MINOR, with `brief_lowered_from: MAJOR`
+(in place of the catalogue reset above);
+a BLOCKER-tier, a MINOR-tier and any `/security-review` finding only get the mark,
+and no engine finding is otherwise written below its catalogue tier.
+The rule reads engine findings alone, so only an engine finding is ever marked:
+`engine` is written only on a finding whose kept Pass 1 survivor itself came from an engine payload
+(`claude-code-review` → `code-review`, `claude-security-review` → `security-review`),
+and a reviewer-agent finding (no `engine`) and a finding whose `rule_key` is not in the catalogue are never marked.
+Remove any `brief_lowered_from` an incoming finding carries, and any mark on a finding
+without an `engine`: only this rule writes them.
+The rule is about the finding's recommended action, not the rule key `NON_GOAL_VIOLATED`
+(a reviewer's claim that the delivered code breaks a Non-Goal is judged like any other finding).
+The mark is the brief-conflict reason (`contradicts_brief`), a field, never a `suppressed_reason`:
+the finding stays kept and counted at the severity written, never `unverified`.
+`lib/review/coordinator-contract.mjs` (`lowerableBriefConflict`, `illegalBriefLowering`)
+holds the same rule, and on an ALLOW or WARN review
+the verdict gate refuses (exit 2) every other marked or lowered shape.
+
 In `quick` mode, skip this pass entirely. Note the skip in the
 Executive Summary so the reader knows reasonableness was not applied.
+The brief-conflict rule above still applies in quick mode (the mark and the
+one lowering) and changes nothing else.
 
 **High-effort normalization (v5.1.1):** When the review is invoked
 under high-effort mode (`phase_signals[review].effort: high`), Pass 3
@@ -170,7 +200,8 @@ category in the catalogue). The original rule_key is
 preserved in the finding's `original_rule_key` field for diagnostic
 purposes. This normalization happens BEFORE writing review.md,
 ensuring all `rule_key` values in the final review match the
-catalogue.
+catalogue. The brief-conflict rule (Pass 3) still applies under high-effort
+mode (the mark and the one lowering) and changes nothing else.
 
 ### Suppression is two-valued (fail-closed)
 
@@ -310,6 +341,9 @@ followed by these fields:
 - `- title: {short imperative title}`
 - `- detail: {what is wrong, with citation}`
 - `- recommended_action: {one imperative step}`
+- `- engine: {code-review | security-review, when the finding came from an engine}`
+- `- contradicts_brief: {verbatim Non-Goal or choice, only when set}`
+- `- brief_lowered_from: {MAJOR, only when lowered for the brief}`
 
 ### Trailing JSON block
 
@@ -333,6 +367,20 @@ The LAST fenced block in the file is a `json` block:
       "title": "...",
       "detail": "...",
       "recommended_action": "..."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "<40-char-hex>",
+      "severity": "MINOR",
+      "rule_key": "CODE_REVIEW_DEFECT",
+      "file": "lib/http.mjs",
+      "line": 42,
+      "brief_ref": "Non-Goal 2",
+      "title": "...",
+      "detail": "...",
+      "recommended_action": "...",
+      "engine": "code-review",
+      "contradicts_brief": "No retry layer around the HTTP client",
+      "brief_lowered_from": "MAJOR"
     }
   ]
 }
@@ -346,13 +394,17 @@ for the ID list.
 ## Hard rules
 
 - **Bounded operations only.** You do NOT read the diff. You do NOT
-  re-evaluate findings against the brief. You do NOT generate new
+  re-evaluate findings against the brief, with one named exception: the
+  brief-conflict rule (Pass 3), which marks an engine finding against the
+  **Brief choices** and lowers only the one legal shape. You do NOT generate new
   findings. The reviewers' outputs are your sole input. Synthesis-level
   inference (e.g., "these 3 findings together suggest a pattern") is
   forbidden in v1.0.
 - **Verdict is mechanical.** No "ALLOW with caveats" or other custom
   verdicts. Only BLOCK / WARN / ALLOW per the threshold table.
-- **Severity floor is the catalogue.** Pass 3 corrects mismatches by
+- **Severity floor is the catalogue.** It holds for every finding
+  except a lowerable brief conflict, which is MINOR (Pass 3, `brief_lowered_from: MAJOR`).
+  Pass 3 corrects mismatches by
   resetting to the catalogue tier — never by dropping. Pass 1's severity
   tiebreak uses the catalogue tier, not the reviewer's emitted value.
 - **Block-style YAML for findings list.** The frontmatter parser
@@ -380,6 +432,7 @@ for the ID list.
   reviewer outputs. Never escalate a finding's severity beyond what the
   catalogue specifies.
 - **Quick mode is documented.** When mode is `quick`, the Executive
-  Summary says so, and Pass 3 is skipped — no other changes.
+  Summary says so, and Pass 3 is skipped — no other changes,
+  except the brief-conflict rule, which applies in every mode.
 - **Honesty in fallback paths.** If `scope_sha_start` is null (mtime
   fallback), the Executive Summary names this limitation explicitly.