Disposition under GGA (R6)
Historical record about the 1.3 proposal, written before the GGA documents arrived. It is preserved verbatim below and is not GGA approval, policy or an oracle. Where it disagrees with the GGA documents (see GGA-Source-Digest), the GGA documents govern (Vault-Update-Plan section 9, N1 and N2). “DG” in the text below means GGA. Current dispositions: Decision-Index-staged, Scenario-Dispositions-staged.
Correction verification
I independently extracted the corrected archive and verified its published ZIP checksum. I read the shipped validator before running it. Its offline structural checks all succeeded on my extracted copy: 252 files, 2,141 note links, 171 file-link matches and 58 valid source-inventory rows. Its three corruption self-tests detected a flipped source byte, a missing decision note and a false scenario status. These are document checks, not application tests.
I also independently recomputed all inventory hashes/sizes, confirmed the manifest excludes itself, compared all 84 Given/When/Then/Evidence/Decision bodies with the source records, verified the original review was copied unchanged, and confirmed the added architecture-source ZIP and historical pilot-commercial HTML match the room originals byte-for-byte. Decision bodies remain pending. Scenario-note changes are revision/navigation metadata, not changed test bodies.
Verified corrections
R01, R02, R03, R04, R06, R07 and R08 are accepted for this consolidation: attribution and limited independence are accurate; inventory is sound; the validator ships and works offline; builder reproducibility limitations are explicit; missing project references are included; external-email duplicates are not ruled out; V1 remains live during V2 review; and the complete vault is clearly INTERNAL, not DG-ready.
R05 is substantially improved: the dependency table and per-step contracts are present, the base outbox contract precedes event-producing mutations, and manual service review is a parallel pre-sale/data gate. Four small but material contradictions still need correction before final delivery.
Final corrections — no new scope or policy
F01 — Proposed defaults are not authority to implement a policy
Step 01 prerequisites say Q09/Q11 may be “at least drafted”; Step 02 says Q01/Q02/Q19 may be “at least as proposed defaults”; Step 04 says Q02/Q06 “(proposed defaults)“. Replace these with an explicit split: policy-independent scaffolding may proceed only after the agreed overall start conditions; decision-dependent behavior and its final oracle remain blocked until DG chooses the applicable rule. Any provisional synthetic exploration must be labelled reversible/unapproved and must not be the accepted production behavior. The existing no-invented-oracle sentence is good but does not cure a contradictory prerequisite.
Acceptance: no prerequisite treats an unapproved recommendation as a settled DG rule. Do not change actual Q bodies.
F02 — T37/T38 are not wholly completable in foundation
Their source scenarios include protected DG admin operations/MFA, revoked-session behavior, worker failures and environment send isolation. The foundation can create configuration/harness checks, not verify all those later features.
Update the dependency table and relevant steps: T37 requires actual identity/role/revocation behavior (02/03) and DG admin operations (09), plus integrated recheck; T38’s worker-failure and staging-email-sink assertions require 07, with integrated operations review at 10. Add corresponding follow-up entries in those steps. Step 01 must no longer say all its primary scenarios can be completed there. Keep original scenario bodies unchanged.
Acceptance: foundation exit concerns only implemented configuration/harness subsets; full T37/T38 remain unverified until their components exist and the named integrated build is tested.
F03 — Do not require an application build to pass a manual-service rehearsal
Step 12’s boilerplate still says evidence requires a named integrated software build/Step 11. That conflicts with the parallel track.
Use the approved procedure/charter revision, consent-template revision, synthetic fixture, staff roles, date and recorded observed result as manual rehearsal evidence. No application build is required for a purely manual service scenario. If a service scenario also asserts a software boundary, link the relevant software check without calling the manual procedure implemented software. Software UAT/acceptance remains limited to the agreed Balanced annex; do not silently make all manual-service cases a software payment gate.
Acceptance: Step 12 and Step 11 make that distinction explicit, preserving the pre-sale/pre-real-data rule.
F04 — Remove future-rule wording that can be read as an executed result
The dependency table’s status cells say “Verified in step XX” despite every scenario being Not executed. Change to “Eligible for verification after …; currently Not executed” or equivalent future wording. Fix T40’s “steps 11 and 11” duplication. These are status-rule labels, not test outcomes.
Finalisation request
Apply F01–F04 only to consolidation notes and builder response. Add this verification record unchanged. Rerun the shipped offline validator/self-tests and all inventory checks on a newly extracted archive. Keep all scenario bodies and pending decisions unchanged. Return the corrected candidate at the same ZIP path for final reviewer verification; do not attribute acceptance to Kedar or DG.
Reviewer independence remains limited: I am a different agent from the builder but helped author the original baseline and coordinated the workshops. No application/service scenario was executed, and no client approval, fee, schedule or launch permission is created by this review.