2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	1ad0b2147d	Retire the old build spec, and point every reference at the architecture (M0.1) ... Development Plan M0.1. Every section reference in code, tests, specs/, the example config, the tuning guide, and the CLAUDE.md and README files now cites docs/Architecture.md (P, L, D, O, X, Q) instead of the old spec's A-H, and docs/Architecture-Build-Spec.md is deleted (git keeps it). The plan's old-to-new table goes with it. Mostly mechanical, with a per-site choice where one old section split: A4 became L2 where it meant stop/abandon/the loop and L3 where it meant approvals; A10 became L6 in the context-budget code and L7 elsewhere; B2 became D4 for outbound Gitea and publishing and D5 for review intake; 'A3 step N' became the matching step of L8's boot sequence. Comments describing behaviour the architecture drops (planning always escalating, thresholds tuned at an old build step) now describe the current code and point at the Development Plan. docs/Architecture.md gains one line the rewrite missed: intake outages delay but never fail work (old B2), now in L5, where the poller and Matrix code cite it. Comments and docs only; no behaviour change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PPQ14L3LikyefCMFBqEbKE	2026-10-01 00:17:48 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	97863c1939	Bind approvals and feedback to the revision they were about ... Fixes counterexamples 1-4 from specs/orchestrator.qnt: a repeated 'approve', 'approve rev-1' meant for the architecture, approving on both channels, and 'approve' plus an afterthought all landed on the next plan, one the operator had not seen. - Revisions are numbered across the work item (A4 already required monotonic tags; the code numbered per gate), so rev-N names one plan. - Each reply is stamped on arrival with the revision that was up: in Matrix the one whose approval request had been sent (a plain value the transport thread reads, restored on boot), in Gitea the latest plan comment older than the reply (board.posts). - Gate.evaluate applies a reply that names no revision only if its stamp is the current revision. Otherwise an approval is not applied and feedback rejects nothing (it is still in the transcript), and the agent says which revision is up. 'approve rev-N' binds by its number. - Spec A4 states both rules. The model applies them; scenarios 1-4 now expect the properties to hold, and both held over 200,000 random traces and Apalache's exhaustive check to depth 8. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PPQ14L3LikyefCMFBqEbKE	2026-09-29 19:13:20 +00:00