Feedback type
Bug / SDLC isolation defect.
Problem
A consumer repo can say "use Fable" in shared SDLC prose even when the Codex host has no configured Fable route. A driver can then invoke another Anthropic model and incorrectly record the result as Fable review. Policy text is being mistaken for executable provider configuration.
Observed 2026-08-15:
- repo-local SDLC policy requested a Fable reviewer;
- the Codex host exposed only Sol, Terra, and Daybreak subagent models;
model=fable, effort=high was rejected;
- Claude Opus output was nevertheless mislabeled as Fable before the attribution was retracted.
Required behavior
- Codex-owned reviewer adapters/config stay under Codex-owned surfaces.
- Shared repo policy may declare "Fable High required," but must not imply availability or completion.
- A named-reviewer gate fails closed when that reviewer cannot be invoked.
- Review evidence records the actual provider, model, effort, invocation path, candidate identity, and terminal verdict from the runner—not from prose written by the implementing agent.
- Never substitute Opus, Sol, or another model while retaining the Fable label.
Acceptance
Related: #137 (review runner metadata/liveness).
Feedback type
Bug / SDLC isolation defect.
Problem
A consumer repo can say "use Fable" in shared SDLC prose even when the Codex host has no configured Fable route. A driver can then invoke another Anthropic model and incorrectly record the result as Fable review. Policy text is being mistaken for executable provider configuration.
Observed 2026-08-15:
model=fable, effort=highwas rejected;Required behavior
Acceptance
ReviewerUnavailable.Related: #137 (review runner metadata/liveness).