Files
dotfiles/scripts
David F GliddenandClaude Opus 5 92d5ad2547 session 2026-08-13: REVIEWED-119/120 placed; MCP key descriptions refreshed
⚠ THIS COMMIT'S CONTENTS ARE MIXED, BY EXECUTOR ERROR, AND THE MESSAGE NOW SAYS
SO RATHER THAN DESCRIBING ONLY ONE PART. The original message named only the
governance-mcp.py change; `git add -A` had swept four other files. Amended before
push, so no shared history is rewritten.

What is actually here:

1. REVIEWED-119 and REVIEWED-120 (REVIEWED.md, +38) — STEWARD acts, placed during
   this session. 119 authorizes PENDING-135 option (c), instance 8 reclassified as
   a negative-candidate with the sub-type name held open, and corrects the item's
   own claim that option (d) was blocked cross-repo (the constraint is
   studium/v2-gold@1 §14.2, engine-side and D-1, not the chamber-locked
   studium/meta@1). 120 authorizes PENDING-136 option (c), retiring bare
   `distinct_spans`.

2. PENDING-135, PENDING-136 and the PENDING-131 Addendum 4 defect-count fix
   (PENDING.md, +212) — executor filings, and the ones that legitimately belong to
   a session wrap.

3. The session ledger (claude/memory/session-ledger-2026-08-13.md) — likewise.

4. governance-mcp.py (+24) — the [FIX] the original message described: two V0-lane
   key descriptions had gone stale the same day the dispositions landed.
   PENDING-134's H1 holds the doctrine ruling until those keys are actually SERVED
   (the running client keeps the old eight-key map until restart, which is steward
   action and still pending). The descriptions are what the jurist reads to decide
   which key to OPEN, so a stale index served at first contact would mislead on
   first contact — the class this whole arc is about. Selftest 54 checks, 0 failures.

5. Brewfile (+1, `mas "NordVPN"`) — NOT this session's work. It belongs to
   sysupdate's sweep and was swept in by the same error. Left in place rather than
   surgically removed: extracting it would rewrite more than it repairs, and the
   line is already accurate. Recorded so the next reader is not misled about which
   process authored it.

The wrap protocol's §6.5 requires a scoped add for exactly this reason — the
steward's in-progress changes belong to the steward's sweep, and a governance
act placed by the steward must not be recorded under an executor's message.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01G38S6gU6G7akko9syvB7nu
2026-08-13 21:24:39 +02:00
..