platform-admin re-anchor L6 (reap): reader census on a walled rig; organization-scope auto-org-admin-grant's resolver; stop minting org-less rows; only then reap

Leg L6 of the accepted #11663 platform-admin re-anchor design. Provenance: design document = #11663 comment 5394453215 (§4 Choice 5, §6 row L6, migration step 7); maintainer acceptance = #11663 comment 5404675670 (2026-08-25, verbatim 「接受你的建议，继续」, Choice 5A now, 5C once the census is in). Filed by PM session session_01KWRU3s15AJz7PGW7a7wdCh.

Blocked-by: #11975

⛔ Blocked-by: #11670 was struck 2026-09-01 — that leg is SPENT. #11670 closed completed 2026-08-31T16:28Z via merged PR #13818 ("resolve the org-admin permission set per organization"). ⭐ That merge delivered this card's step 2: the 2026-08-31T12:46Z re-derivation comment predicted exactly this — 「它一合并,本卡的 step 2 就同时完成」 — and it has happened. So the ordered content below now begins at step 1 with step 2 already green, and the only remaining dependency is #11975.

⚠️ #11975 is itself one half of a mutual Blocked-by deadlock with #13515 (each named the other, so neither unlock predicate could ever fire). The false edge was repaired on #13515 on 2026-09-01; #11975 → #13515 is the sound edge and remains. Re-derive this card's blocker once that chain clears.

Ordered content (⛔ order is the safety mechanism):

Reader census, per name, over sys_user_permission_set, sys_position_permission_set and sys_user_position, on a real walled rig — the design's H3 measurement contradicts the parent card's parenthetical, so "only admin_full_access is pointed at" must be proven, never assumed. ⚠️ NOT MEASURED and not measurable from this repository — no in-repo command reaches deployment data. The repo:cloud seat or a deployment operator must run it.
~~Organization-scope auto-org-admin-grant.ts's unscoped name→id resolver BEFORE anything is deleted~~ — ✅ DELIVERED by PR fix(plugin-security): resolve the org-admin permission set per organization, and keep the revoke reach wide #13818 (auto-org-admin-grant resolves the organization_admin set id by name alone (limit 1, unscoped, process-cached), so walled org-admin grants can point at the organization-less row #11670), merged 2026-08-31. The resolver now takes organizationId, reads limit 5 when scoped (a scoped read still returns org-less rows through the driver's compatibility arm), and routes through resolveOwnOrganizationRow. The hazard this step existed to prevent — a reap past an unscoped resolver silently revoking org admins with no signal at the moment of loss — is closed.
Stop minting the org-less sys_permission_set bucket under walled posture (single keeps its rows under Choice 4A).
Reap the 8 org-less rows (5C) only after 1–3 are green.

⚠️ Interaction named by the #11633 designer: auto-org-admin-grant.ts's process-lifetime permissionSetIdCache — a reap while a process holds that cache is exactly when it bites; sequence or invalidate before step 4. This concern is materially reduced but not formally retired by PR #13818: the cache is no longer keyed on name alone, so the specific cross-organization collision is gone — but a process-lifetime cache across a reap still wants an explicit answer at step 4. ⚠️ The old line citation :209 has rotted (:227 / :229 as of 2026-08-31, and moved again by #13818). Locate by symbol, never by line.

Acceptance criterion: census results posted on this card per name/table before any delete lands; after the reap, a walled rig boots with zero org-less sys_permission_set rows and every org admin's access is unchanged (spot-checked via the census's named readers).

解锁重推(unlock re-derivation)— `domain:services` 座位 #6021,R10,2026-08-31

上游之一已关,协议要求「⛔ 不反射式放行,先重新推导并改写该行」。已重推,结论:仍然 blocked,但阻塞项换了。

原正文行	现状	处置
`Blocked-by: #11974`	✅ 已关 —— L4 落地为 PR #13514 / `b9972720f`	删除
`Blocked-by: #11975`	仍开 —— L5 的残留是 #13515,而 #13515 因发版约束最早 17.4.0(依据:PR #13666 测定 L4 走 17.3.0)	保留
—	⚠️ #11670 从来没有过正典行	新增 `Blocked-by: #11670`

⚠️ #11670 这一项是本次重推的实质发现

它在本卡正文里从一开始就被点名(「a reap while a process holds that cache is exactly when it bites; sequence or invalidate before step 4」),在 #11670 自己正文里也写着 「#11663 ... its reap leg is gated on this」 —— 但双方都只写在散文里,没有任何一侧有 Blocked-by: 行。

⇒ 协议明写:指令是行,提及是散文。一个只活在散文里的依赖,解锁扫描看不见 —— 于是本卡真正的头号阻塞项七天不在任何机器可读的账本上。现已补进正文。

⚠️ 而 #11670 那一侧的错更贵:它挂着 pm:blocked 却没有任何 Blocked-by: 行,所以它既不会被任何解锁扫描点火,也不会被当作可派发卡扫到 —— 一口没有出口的井。已在 R10 纠正:摘 pm:blocked、定 p1、当轮派发(PR 在飞)。它一合并,本卡的 step 2 就同时完成,因为 step 2 就是它。

本卡到 step 1 还差什么(记下来,免得下一轮重推)

step 2 = auto-org-admin-grant resolves the organization_admin set id by name alone (limit 1, unscoped, process-cached), so walled org-admin grants can point at the organization-less row #11670,在飞。
step 1(真实 walled 台架上的 per-name reader census)仍不可达:本仓测不到部署数据。⚠️ 但形状现在有了 —— Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides #13419 slice 1 合并的 scripts/measure-position-name-fold-census.mjs 演示了 --audit-schema / --audit FILE 与「空导出报 NOT_MEASURED 而非零」的做法,是 step 1 的可复刻模板。
Blocked-by: #11975 是发版节奏约束,不是技术约束。

⛔ 未改本卡标签:两条 Blocked-by: 都还开着,pm:blocked 仍然正确。

Generated by Claude Code

Pointer — ADR-0131 absorbs steps 3 and 4 of this leg, and turns step 1 into an input rather than a precondition. Not a re-ruling; a notice so the reap is not built twice.

ADR-0131 (merged 2026-09-04, #14976) decides the destination this card was walking toward step by step:

Step 3 — "stop minting the org-less sys_permission_set bucket under walled posture" is superseded by something stronger. refactor(plugin-security,platform-objects,spec): retire the catalog seeders, the per-organization catalog machinery and the four catalog objects; Setup creation is an environment write under single and refused under a wall (ADR-0131 D2/D3/D5/D13) #15204 (C3) retires the seeders outright: a fresh boot in every posture — walled and single* — writes **zero** rows to sys_position, sys_permission_set, sys_position_permission_set, sys_capabilityandsys_sharing_rule, pinned with a positive control. There is no bucket left to stop minting, in any posture. Note this goes past this card's own scope, which kept single`'s rows under Choice 4A.
Step 4 — "reap the 8 org-less rows" becomes fate 2 (mirror deletion) of feat(objectql,cli): inventory + migration — four fates per object, mirrors deleted only after the id→name rewrite is verified, per-table boot report (ADR-0131 D10) #15211 (C7), under the manual operator ceremony, and — importantly — gated: mirrors are deleted only after feat(core,objectql,plugin-security,plugin-sharing): the catalog is read from the registry; assignment tables reference it by name (ADR-0131 D2/D3/D4) #15196 (C2)'s report shows every reference resolves by name. That gate is a stronger version of this card's own ordering discipline, and it is the reason the reap is not this card's to perform any more.
Step 1 — the reader census keeps its value and changes its role. It is no longer the precondition guarding a delete; it is an input to C7's inventory, which owes one fate per object with a citation. Its unmeasurable-from-this-repo status is unchanged: a repo:cloud seat or a deployment operator still has to run it. If it is run, post it here and on feat(objectql,cli): inventory + migration — four fates per object, mirrors deleted only after the id→name rewrite is verified, per-table boot report (ADR-0131 D10) #15211.
The permissionSetIdCache interaction still wants an explicit answer, and it wants it at C7's fate-2 step now rather than here.

State: stays pm:blocked on its existing chain — ⛔ this comment does not release it, and the transitive-wait warnings on this card and #11979 still stand. When #15211 is dispatched, whoever takes it reads this card, and this card closes by pointer if nothing survives it.

Refs: ADR-0131 D2/D3/D10 · #15204 (C3) · #15211 (C7) · #15196 (C2) · #15194 · #15193 (the v18 gate).

State repair: `pm:on-hold` → `pm:blocked` — this card's label contradicted its own body and its own last two comments

domain:services execution seat, 2026-09-11T19:58Z. Reached from the half-state patrol anchor #9857 (sweep 19:46:06Z, commit 66440147a), which named this card on H19 · H26 · H28 · H52. ⚠️ Per standing discipline those rows are inputs, not verdicts — what follows is the card read, not the row obeyed.

What was measured

reading	value
labels (read twice, 18:25Z and 19:55Z)	`domain:services` · `pm:on-hold` · `pm:blocking`
body `Blocked-by:` lines	`Blocked-by: #11975` (one line; #11975 is OPEN)
body `Restart-when:` lines	NONE
body `Restart-touch:`	absent
assignees	none
open/merged PR referencing this card	none

The state model makes pm:on-hold without a machine-readable Restart-when: line a half-state, not a state. A card waiting on another issue is pm:blocked + Blocked-by:; pm:on-hold is for "the decision is made and the answer is not yet", and it is legal only with a restart condition a sweep can read. This card has the Blocked-by: line and no restart condition ⇒ its declared state is the wrong one of the two.

⭐ The card's own record already said so, twice, and neither comment was acted on:

issuecomment-5478577663 (2026-08-31, the unlock re-derivation) — 「⛔ 未改本卡标签:两条 Blocked-by: 都还开着,pm:blocked 仍然正确。」
issuecomment-5536462985 (2026-09-04, the ADR-0131 pointer) — "State: stays pm:blocked on its existing chain — ⛔ this comment does not release it."

⇒ ⛔ This is not a re-derivation and ⛔ not a release. The blocker is unchanged, the work is unchanged, the ordering discipline is unchanged. Only the label is corrected to the one this card's own authors recorded.

⚠️ One reading recorded without an explanation, deliberately

The issue-events API for this card returns 5 events total, 2 of them pm-label events: pm:blocked added 2026-08-25T03:32:14Z, pm:blocking added 2026-08-31T21:05:25Z. There is no event removing pm:blocked and none adding pm:on-hold — yet the live label set carries pm:on-hold and not pm:blocked. updated_at is 2026-09-07T09:45:32Z, later than every event. The same disagreement reads on #11975 (8 pm-label events, last one pm:blocked; live label pm:on-hold) and on #15556 (last event pm:queue at 2026-09-07T08:28:35Z; live label pm:blocked).

⛔ The mechanism is NOT established here and this seat is not going to establish it — that is a platform-behaviour question, not this card's. It is written down because it has one consequence worth knowing: a pm-state cannot be audited from the events API alone on these cards. Anyone doing forensics on "who set this state and when" should read the live label set as authority and treat the event log as possibly incomplete.

⚠️ Also declared: the first pass at this reading was wrong in this seat's own instrument — the pm-label filter was applied after truncating to the last 10 events, which can hide pm events behind unrelated label events. The numbers above come from the corrected pass (filter first, full page counted, Link header checked: single page for all three cards).

Where the real "cannot move" condition lives — and why it is NOT silenced by this repair

H26 fired on #11973 and #11979 because their Blocked-by: target (this card) wore a state that never closes. That complaint is substantively true of the chain and this repair does not erase it; it moves it to where it is declared honestly:

#11973 / #11979  →  #11978 (this card)  →  #11975  →  #13515
   pm:blocked          pm:blocked           pm:blocked      pm:on-hold
                                                        + Restart-when: a plugin-security
                                                          minor GREATER than the one
                                                          carrying L4 (⇒ no earlier
                                                          than 17.4.0), measured 2026-08-31

#13515 is correct as it stands — measured this round: it carries a real Restart-when: line with its own measurement, plus a Restart-touch:, and no Blocked-by:. A release-boundary wait is exactly what pm:on-hold is for. ⇒ The chain's genuine immobility is declared in one machine-readable place, and the three cards above it now say what they are actually doing: waiting on an issue.

⛔ Not done here: #11975's identical repair is being made on its own card in the same round, with its own read-back. ⛔ Nothing about ADR-0131's absorption of steps 3–4 (issuecomment-5536462985) is re-opened or re-decided.

The write

One label replace: pm:on-hold removed, pm:blocked added, pm:blocking and domain:services untouched, assignees passed back empty. Target set computed from the label set read immediately before the write, and diffed against union(read, delta) on read-back.

Generated by Claude Code

Addendum — scope of the `Restart-when:` reading, widened to both channels (⛔ conclusion unchanged)

issuecomment-5639937182 above reported "body Restart-when: lines — NONE". That was true but scoped too narrowly to carry the legality claim: the restart condition is legal in either channel — body or a comment — and the patrol's own H9 predicate reads both (stated verbatim by the triage seat on #11453: "pm:on-hold with no Restart-when: line in either channel").

Re-measured 2026-09-11T20:56Z over this card's full comment thread as well as its body:

platform-admin re-anchor L6 (reap): reader census on a walled rig; organization-scope auto-org-admin-grant's resolver; stop minting org-less rows; only then reap #11978 — Restart-when: appears in no comment (3 comments; the only hits are inside my own comment above). Control: 3 comments mention pm: , so the query answers.
platform-admin re-anchor L5 (migration): time-boxed legacy-grant dual read, then its removal one minor later #11975 — likewise none. Its one near-hit (issuecomment-5473780552, 2026-08-31) is prose asking that a line be added if a real prerequisite exists — 「请补一条 Blocked-by: 或 Restart-when: 再挂回 pm:blocked」 — not a condition.

⇒ Both cards had no restart condition in either channel, so pm:on-hold was illegal on both and the repair to pm:blocked stands exactly as written. Nothing here changes the label, the blocker, or the chain.

⚠️ Recorded because the instrument was wrong even though the answer was right: a body-only regex fails in the dangerous direction — it reports a legally-held card as a half-state. Measured on the two neighbours this round: #11286 carries Restart-when: closed #7497 and #11453 carries a full machine-form line, both in comments, and a body-only test calls both illegal. Neither was touched.

Generated by Claude Code

Four sites recorded for the L6 reap — surfaced by the at-tier review of PR #19136, re-measured here

_{domain:services seat (#6021) · session_019hBqDVrwbijUCoK9qsss2E · written 2026-09-19T00:58Z. ⛔ Report-only: no label written, no claim taken, this card keeps pm:blocked + pm:blocking. Recorded so the reap does not have to re-derive them.}

Why these land here rather than on #18336

PR #19136 (card #18336) retires the legacy unscoped admin_full_access anchor under a walled posture. Its declared and reviewed boundary is 「the retirement takes the anchor, not the grant」 — the row itself, and the permission-set name it puts in context.permissions, survive. Disposing of the row is this card's leg (L6 reap) and #11979's for single.

⇒ these four read the name or a capability, ⛔ not the anchor. ⚠️ Measured as unchanged by that diff: §6b pushes the set name on every posture for any active grant row passing the organization filter, so each arm was true before and stays true. ⛔ Not a dual-track PR #19136 opens, and correctly not fixed there.

The sites, on `origin/main`

site	what it reads
`plugin-approvals/src/approval-service.ts:1402`	`posture === 'PLATFORM_ADMIN' \|\| perms.includes(ADMIN_FULL_ACCESS)` — the second arm survives
`plugin-sharing/src/sharing-rule-service.ts:348–352`	`hasPlatformAuthority` — `caps.includes('manage_platform_settings')` OR `posture === 'PLATFORM_ADMIN'`
`plugin-sharing/src/sharing-plugin.ts:1188`	the same `manage_platform_settings` capability
`plugin-security/src/security-plugin.ts:6044–6046`	the capability-probe fallback for hand-built contexts

Consequence, stated abstractly (security family — ⛔ no reproduction recipe): a walled account the derivation now grades MEMBER can still act as the approvals override actor, delete a platform-global sharing rule, and cross the wall on a hand-built context — exactly as before the diff, by design, until the row is disposed of.

One more, log-only

security-plugin.ts:6035–6043 — for a walled legacy holder the carried rung and the capability probe now disagree, so the ADR-0099 I4 breadcrumb fires per tenant-object operation: 「Layer 0 exemption: carried posture rung and capability probe disagree; enforcing the (narrower) carried rung」. ⭐ Correct direction (it enforces the narrower rung) and 「a breadcrumb, never a throw」 in its own words — but on a walled rig carrying a legacy row it now fires routinely rather than exceptionally. Worth knowing before someone reads the volume as a new defect.

⚠️ Instrument note — this seat's first reading of two of these sites was WRONG

Checking the reviewer's list, a grep for ADMIN_FULL_ACCESS returned 0 in sharing-rule-service.ts and security-plugin.ts, which would have read as 「two of the four do not exist」. ⛔ It was an artefact: both files use the lowercase string literal — admin_full_access resolves 5 and 7 times respectively, ADMIN_FULL_ACCESS 0.

⭐ The control that should have caught it did not, because it lived in a different file (approval-service.ts, where the constant spelling is used). A positive control only licenses a zero when it is on the same subject as the zero — same file, same corpus, same spelling convention. ⚠️ Second time this shift a character-level guess about spelling produced a confident wrong reading; recorded here rather than quietly corrected.

Generated by Claude Code

解除停放(维护者指令,skills 席 2 代执行)— 2026-09-21T03:44Z

出处三件(SKILL.md :149 代执行他人指令,评论带出处三件)— 谁的指令:维护者,在本席(domain:skills seat 2,session_017ETYWqMQD4qMtZzAGovWNi,席位帖 #19287)会话内的真实用户轮次。在哪说:本席会话聊天,2026-09-21,在本席呈交「停放排查」四组清单(全板 165 张停放卡:pm:blocked 64 + pm:on-hold 101;其中 38 张的停放条件已消失——正文与评论里 Blocked-by: / Restart-when: 指向的卡或 PR 全部已关或已合)之后。原话(逐字,⛔ 未翻译、未润色):「还有哪些应该解除停放的你一起排查一下」;对四组清单:「同意」。

本卡属第一组「条件已消失、恢复排队」:本席于 2026-09-21T03:00Z 机器复核,本卡停放所指向的每个目标都已关闭或已合并(具体目标见卡面 Blocked-by: / Restart-when: 行),而卡的内容是产品面(用户可见行为、契约或数据完整性),按北极星「优先级」不属 #202 B 的工具卡关闭面。

动作:停放状态标签一笔换回 pm:queue(assignee 为空的卡);⛔ 本席不派发——本卡回到所属车道的取卡全序,由该车道席位按序认领。若卡面 Blocked-by: 行已无效,请取卡席位在认领时一并清理。

⚠️ 若本卡当前带 assignee(有认领在案),本席按「跨账号 assignee 不是你 ⇒ 永不碰」只留本条评论、不改状态:持有席位见此即可续做;持有会话已不可达者,按 #19240 落地后的接管协议一笔接管。

Generated by Claude Code

Maintainer-action: 在一台真实 walled rig 上跑第 1 步的 reader census(逐 name,覆盖 sys_user_permission_set、sys_position_permission_set、sys_user_position),并把结果按卡面验收判据贴回本卡。执行方按卡面为 repo:cloud 席或部署运维;本仓无命令可达部署数据。

状态转换:`pm:queue` → `pm:awaiting-maintainer`。阻塞已真解除,但剩下的是站外动作

_{domain:services seat · session_01AhQASwqJr2Z7XfGWUdvnbF · 写于 2026-09-21T13:21Z。⛔ 未改 domain:*、未定级、未指派。}

为什么本席取到它、又为什么不派

取到它:全序里 pm:blocking 排第二(仅次于 priority:p0,高于 p1),本卡带该标 ⇒ 队列现存三张卡中它第一。⚠️ 本席的排序脚本按「级→bug→卡龄」排,把无级的 #7401 排在了前面 —— 脚本少实现了一档,已按全序原文更正。

阻塞已解除,本席现验:正文 Blocked-by: #11975,而 #11975 现为 closed / completed(2026-09-20T21:16Z)。⇒ 该边已清,pm:blocked 不再适用。

但不派,理由在卡面自身:

第 1 步(walled rig 上的 reader census)卡面自陈 「NOT MEASURED and not measurable from this repository — no in-repo command reaches deployment data」;
验收判据要求 census 结果先贴回本卡,任何删除才能落地;
卡面写明 「⛔ order is the safety mechanism」。

⇒ 派给本仓 dev 无法交付第 1 步,而第 4 步(reap)要求 1–3 全绿。这是站外人工动作,符合 pm:awaiting-maintainer 的定义(「只剩站外人工动作,恒带 Maintainer-action: 行」)。

本席没有做的事

⛔ 没有判定「第 3 步(停止铸造 org-less 桶)可以先于 census 单独做」。它在本仓可做,但卡面把顺序声明为安全机制,而本卡源自 [Design] Re-anchor platform-admin: admin_full_access becomes a kernel metadata declaration; WHO holds it comes from env-configured verified emails — retiring the org-less row anchor #11663 的已接受设计与维护者接受语。拆不拆这个顺序是设计裁量,不是本席的裁量空间 —— 本班已因越界裁过一次并公开更正(dev mode: os dev accepts plain-HTTP OAuth for MCP on any host (loud warning); production keeps TLS-required with no switch — the need behind fork PR #19342 #19489 5757931777)。若你认为第 3 步可先行,一句话即可,本席随即派发。
⛔ 没有动本卡正文。Maintainer-action: 行按 [finding] GitHub MCP issue reads return HTML-escaped bodies, so any seat that appends a line by rewriting a card body may store ' literals into its code blocks #8813 的先例载于本评论(正文改写有转义风险,且本卡正文是他席产出)。

顺带一条分诊缺口(轮报)

本车道队列现存三张卡 全部无级(#7401、#10164、#11978)。charter 要求「无级/缺 Path: 轮报记分诊缺口」⇒ 记此一笔。本卡另有 pm:blocking,而 pm:blocking ⛔ 不手工挂,其来源应由分诊复核。

Generated by Claude Code

关闭(维护者裁定):剩余的第 3、4 步由 ADR-0131 v18 的 #15204 / #15211 接走,普查读数成为 #15211 的输入

分诊席(session_01Tw7jnJinGHvoGSi8aFkhPJ),2026-09-23T14:28Z。维护者在分诊席的「待维护者」复核批次 ① 里答「11978 … 关闭」。本席读完了本卡全部评论。

这张卡做到了哪一步

L6(清理 8 条没有组织的平台管理员授权行)共四步:
- 第 2 步已交付(PR fix(plugin-security): resolve the org-admin permission set per organization, and keep the revoke reach wide #13818);
- 阻塞 platform-admin re-anchor L5 (migration): time-boxed legacy-grant dual read, then its removal one minor later #11975 已于 09-20 关闭;
- 剩下三步:第 1 步「在真实的隔离部署上普查读者」,本仓库里测不到,要云端或运维来测;第 3 步「隔离形态下不再生成无组织行」;第 4 步「清理」。
ADR-0131(v18)把第 3、4 步吸收进了 refactor(plugin-security,platform-objects,spec): retire the catalog seeders, the per-organization catalog machinery and the four catalog objects; Setup creation is an environment write under single and refused under a wall (ADR-0131 D2/D3/D5/D13) #15204(C3) 与 feat(objectql,cli): inventory + migration — four fates per object, mirrors deleted only after the id→name rewrite is verified, per-table boot report (ADR-0131 D10) #15211(C7,盘点加迁移:每张表按其归宿处理,附开机报告)。第 1 步的普查因此成为 feat(objectql,cli): inventory + migration — four fates per object, mirrors deleted only after the id→name rewrite is verified, per-table boot report (ADR-0131 D10) #15211 迁移的输入,而不是本卡的一个独立步骤。

关闭意味着什么

⛔ 不是「已完成」:无组织行今天仍在;09-19 记下的 4 处按旧名字或能力放行的读取点,在这些行被处理前照旧放行(设计如此,不是新缺陷)。它们随 feat(objectql,cli): inventory + migration — four fates per object, mirrors deleted only after the id→name rewrite is verified, per-table boot report (ADR-0131 D10) #15211 的迁移一起消失。
普查若在 v18 开线前就能取到,贴在 feat(objectql,cli): inventory + migration — four fates per object, mirrors deleted only after the id→name rewrite is verified, per-table boot report (ADR-0131 D10) #15211 上。
platform-admin re-anchor follow-up (Choice 4B): config-anchor the single posture — first-user promotion becomes development-only fallback #11979 原来 Blocked-by: #11978,卡面明确要求本卡关闭时重新推导它的阻塞。本席刚在那里改为 Blocked-by: #15204,pm:blocked 不变,⛔ 所以它不会因为本卡关闭被错误放行。

标签:摘 pm:awaiting-maintainer、pm:blocking;domain:services 保留;以 not_planned(被吸收)关闭。

Generated by Claude Code

docs(core): re-key the §6b-config posture-gate comment to the ruling …

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

platform-admin re-anchor L6 (reap): reader census on a walled rig; organization-scope auto-org-admin-grant's resolver; stop minting org-less rows; only then reap #11978

解锁重推(unlock re-derivation)— `domain:services` 座位 #6021,R10,2026-08-31

⚠️ #11670 这一项是本次重推的实质发现

本卡到 step 1 还差什么(记下来,免得下一轮重推)

State repair: `pm:on-hold` → `pm:blocked` — this card's label contradicted its own body and its own last two comments

What was measured

⚠️ One reading recorded without an explanation, deliberately

Where the real "cannot move" condition lives — and why it is NOT silenced by this repair

The write

Addendum — scope of the `Restart-when:` reading, widened to both channels (⛔ conclusion unchanged)

Four sites recorded for the L6 reap — surfaced by the at-tier review of PR #19136, re-measured here

Why these land here rather than on #18336

The sites, on `origin/main`

One more, log-only

⚠️ Instrument note — this seat's first reading of two of these sites was WRONG

解除停放(维护者指令,skills 席 2 代执行)— 2026-09-21T03:44Z

状态转换:`pm:queue` → `pm:awaiting-maintainer`。阻塞已真解除,但剩下的是站外动作

为什么本席取到它、又为什么不派

本席没有做的事

顺带一条分诊缺口(轮报)

关闭(维护者裁定):剩余的第 3、4 步由 ADR-0131 v18 的 #15204 / #15211 接走,普查读数成为 #15211 的输入

这张卡做到了哪一步

关闭意味着什么

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

platform-admin re-anchor L6 (reap): reader census on a walled rig; organization-scope auto-org-admin-grant's resolver; stop minting org-less rows; only then reap #11978

Description

Activity

os-steve commented on Aug 31, 2026

解锁重推(unlock re-derivation)— domain:services 座位 #6021,R10,2026-08-31

⚠️ #11670 这一项是本次重推的实质发现

本卡到 step 1 还差什么(记下来,免得下一轮重推)

hotlong commented on Sep 4, 2026

os-sales commented on Sep 11, 2026

State repair: pm:on-hold → pm:blocked — this card's label contradicted its own body and its own last two comments

What was measured

⚠️ One reading recorded without an explanation, deliberately

Where the real "cannot move" condition lives — and why it is NOT silenced by this repair

The write

os-sales commented on Sep 11, 2026

Addendum — scope of the Restart-when: reading, widened to both channels (⛔ conclusion unchanged)

huangyiirene commented on Sep 19, 2026

Four sites recorded for the L6 reap — surfaced by the at-tier review of PR #19136, re-measured here

Why these land here rather than on #18336

The sites, on origin/main

One more, log-only

⚠️ Instrument note — this seat's first reading of two of these sites was WRONG

os-steve commented on Sep 21, 2026

解除停放(维护者指令,skills 席 2 代执行)— 2026-09-21T03:44Z

huangyiirene commented on Sep 21, 2026

状态转换:pm:queue → pm:awaiting-maintainer。阻塞已真解除,但剩下的是站外动作

为什么本席取到它、又为什么不派

本席没有做的事

顺带一条分诊缺口(轮报)

objectstack-fleet commented on Sep 23, 2026

关闭(维护者裁定):剩余的第 3、4 步由 ADR-0131 v18 的 #15204 / #15211 接走,普查读数成为 #15211 的输入

这张卡做到了哪一步

关闭意味着什么

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

解锁重推(unlock re-derivation)— `domain:services` 座位 #6021,R10,2026-08-31

State repair: `pm:on-hold` → `pm:blocked` — this card's label contradicted its own body and its own last two comments

Addendum — scope of the `Restart-when:` reading, widened to both channels (⛔ conclusion unchanged)

The sites, on `origin/main`

状态转换:`pm:queue` → `pm:awaiting-maintainer`。阻塞已真解除,但剩下的是站外动作