Repository navigation
[finding] ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 declares performed_by + on_behalf_of + RUN ID — PR #18371 delivers the first two, and the third has no carrier anywhere on the request path #18374
Description
Activity
Claim: PM loop round R44 (wave 2)
Session:session_01JbZnqu8bt6YqfJsr9vaFb3
Branch:claude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carrier
Worktree:objectstack-issue-18374
Domain:domain:spec
Seat:domain:spec#2
File surface:packages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.tsand its sibling test first;packages/core/src/security/assemble-execution-context.tsand its sibling test only if the tree shows the entry set is defined there (stop on breach; explain in the report)
Container & model:M,mode:subagent,model: default judgement tier—node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --tier packages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.ts packages/core/src/security/assemble-execution-context.tsat8f42b17461(2026-09-19T10:55Z) printed verbatim: "Model tier — no path-derived mandate: the surface hits none of the 3 declared glob(s)" and "Clause ② SUSPECT surface — a hint, not a verdict", namingpackages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.tsunderpackages/spec/src/**.
Clause-②: yes
Thread-read: 5716320738
Serial constraints cleared: none — all four candidate files measured FREE across all 22 open PRs (341 distinct held paths); see the prose line below for the stamp and the controls.Occupancy taken at 2026-09-19T10:55Z. Firing control in the same read:
packages/spec/src/data/object.zod.tsreads HELD. Dark control:packages/nope/x.tsreads 0.os-verify-lock.sh --statusreadlock is free/queue: empty⇒ arrival depth 1, under the hold threshold of 2.⭐ Lane check, because this card's named carrier lives outside
packages/spec. The card namesNonEntryExecutionContextField, andgit grepatorigin/mainfinds it only inpackages/core/src/security/assemble-execution-context.ts. This seat did not take that as a routing error: the contract that declares the field and defines the entry-resolvable set ispackages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.ts, so the declaration half is this lane's andpackages/coreis the enforcement site. Triage ruled the lane deliberately on5716320738and pre-wrote the fence for exactly this shape. ⇒ dispatched here rather than sent to retriage; if the dev measures that the entry set is wholly apackages/corefact with no spec-side declaration to move, that is a routing finding and it comes back.Clause-②: yes: making a declared-but-unresolvable field resolvable at the transport entry widens what the entry accepts.
Generated by Claude Code
os-dev-report
{ "issue": 18374, "status": "needs_decision", "branch": "claude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carrier", "pr": null, "session": "session_01JbZnqu8bt6YqfJsr9vaFb3", "premise_still_valid": true, "summary": "The card's premise is confirmed on origin/main at 564ac2f170 and is in fact stronger than filed: ExecutionContext.traceId is declared (packages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.ts:465) and listed in NonEntryExecutionContextField (packages/core/src/security/assemble-execution-context.ts:84), so no transport entry point resolves it, and the two traceId producers turn out to have ZERO production callers at all, not merely to sit off the authorization path. No code was written: two independent stop conditions named in the dispatch are both measurably met. First, ADR-0090 D10 rule 4's 'run id' is never defined anywhere in the ADR corpus (the phrase occurs exactly once, at docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.md:392), no agent-run concept exists in the tree, and the two existing correlation ids are both caller-controlled, so picking a lifetime would silently mint a contract. Second, triage's fence is tripped: the fix cannot be confined to moving an existing field into the entry set, because an entry field no door populates is exactly the ADR-0049 defect this card exists to close, and populating it requires a minting door plus hook-provenance and audit-writer halves across five packages outside the declared file surface.", "tests": "No build, no test, no ablation: nothing was written, so there is nothing to measure. git status --porcelain is empty and `node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands` exits 2 printing verbatim: \"this branch changes nothing against 'origin/main' (merge base 564ac2f17) - nothing to derive\", with its --repo assertion holding against this checkout's origin. The checkout is not shallow (git rev-parse --is-shallow-repository = false), so the greps below are answered from full history. MEASUREMENTS, all at 564ac2f170 in worktree /home/user/objectstack-issue-18374: (1) NonEntryExecutionContextField is declared only at packages/core/src/security/assemble-execution-context.ts:79-90 and contains 'traceId' at line 84 - confirmed. (2) ENTRY_EXECUTION_CONTEXT_FIELDS (same file, lines 116-137) is 21 names and already contains 'performedBy'. (3) traceId producers: packages/core/src/logger.ts:476 withTrace and packages/runtime/src/observability/request-context.ts:100 parseTraceparent - `git grep 'withTrace(' / 'parseTraceparent'` finds NO production caller for either, only tests and the index re-exports (packages/runtime/src/index.ts:158, observability/index.ts:7). (4) No source file outside those two plus the spec declaration and the core assembler mentions traceId on an ExecutionContext, so there is no `as any` blind spot of the #7280 kind. (5) Four transport faces call the shared assembler: packages/mcp/src/plugin.ts:165, packages/plugins/plugin-hono-server/src/current-user-endpoints.ts:685, packages/rest/src/rest-server.ts:3051, packages/runtime/src/security/resolve-execution-context.ts:251. (6) ExecutionContextAssemblyInput (assemble-execution-context.ts:205-261) carries authz, oauth, localization, requestLocale, accessToken, authGate - no trace, request or run id; ResolvedAuthzContext carries none either. (7) `git grep -i 'run id|run-id|run_id|runId' docs/adr/*.md` returns only flow-run ids (ADR-0019, 0044, 0072), a migration-journal run_id (ADR-0119) and ADR-0118's flow-run mention; the agent run id of D10 rule 4 appears once and is never defined. (8) No agent-run concept in the tree: `git grep 'agentRun|AgentRun|agent_run'` hits packages/spec/CHANGELOG.md only, and the MCP streamable-HTTP transport is configured `sessionIdGenerator: undefined` with the comment 'Stateless: no session id, single request/response' (packages/mcp/src/mcp-server-runtime.ts:1636-1638), so the door holds no run correlation. (9) Both existing correlation ids are caller-controlled: resolveRequestId returns `extractRequestId(headers) ?? generate()` (request-context.ts:77-82), preferring the client's X-Request-Id, and traceId is parsed from the client's traceparent. (10) verifyMcpAccessToken (packages/plugins/plugin-auth/src/auth-manager.ts:6296-6347) returns only { userId, scopes, clientId } - the verified JWT payload is in scope at line 6313 but no jti is read. (11) The full chain a run id must travel, measured end to end: spec execution-context.zod.ts, core assemble-execution-context.ts, a minting door in runtime/src/security/resolve-execution-context.ts, spec/src/data/hook.zod.ts provenance, packages/objectql/src/engine.ts:4140-4159, packages/plugins/plugin-audit/src/audit-writers.ts:1396-1405 - seven packages against a declared surface of two files.", "mcp_calls": "0 - no MCP tool of any kind was called; all GitHub reads and the report write went through the REST proxy with curl.", "api_writes": "1 - POST /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/18374/comments (this report). No PR was created, no label was written, no PR body was patched. One git push of a zero-commit branch (the routing probe, 200 OK, not a REST write).", "open_questions": [ { "question": "LIFETIME, and it is the contract. ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 requires a run id on every agent write but never defines one; the word occurs once, at docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.md:392, inside the `agent` bullet beside 'Task-scoped, time-boxed agent grants'. Four lifetimes are representable and they are four different audit contracts. The most probable reading of the ADR - a per-agent-run id - is the one the tree cannot mint today: the MCP transport is explicitly stateless and the door sees one JSON-RPC request with a bearer token and no run correlation whatsoever.", "options": [ "A - per-request, server-minted. Mint a fresh id at the /mcp door per request. Forgery-proof and cheap. COST: it is a request id wearing a run id's name - forensics still cannot group the writes of one agent task, which is the whole value of rule 4's third part - and the repo already mints a per-request id in the observability instrument, so this is a second one.", "B - token-scoped, from the access token's jti. Read jti at the same door that already reads azp (auth-manager.ts:6296 verifies the JWT and has the payload in hand). Server-minted by the authorization server, inside the signed JWT, therefore unforgeable, and it groups every write made with one access token - the closest existing thing to an agent run. COST: a token lifetime is not a task lifetime (one token spans several tasks, a refresh splits one task), and whether better-auth's oauth-provider stamps jti at all is UNMEASURED here.", "C - client-declared run id (a new header or an MCP meta field, shape-validated server side). The only option that yields a true per-agent-run lifetime. COST: it changes the transport's PUBLIC shape, which is precisely triage's fence, and an attribution value supplied by the audited party is forgeable unless bound to the token.", "D - wire the existing traceId, the route Zone 3 suggested. COST: FALSIFIED BY MEASUREMENT, see recommendation." ], "recommendation": "B, contingent on first measuring that the deployment's access tokens actually carry jti; fall back to A named honestly (an operation id, not a run id) rather than calling a request id a run id. D should be struck: its only producers derive the value from the client's traceparent / X-Request-Id headers, so it is caller-controlled, and putting a caller-controlled value into an ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 attribution record contradicts the envelope's own repeated invariant - performedBy, attributedUserId, flowRunId, isSystem and authGate each declare 'Server-constructed only, never client-supplied', and HookContext.provenance declares 'Server-stamped and never client-supplied'. It would also be absent unless the audited agent chose to send the header. Zone 3 asked me to prefer wiring an existing correlation id over minting a new field; measurement says neither existing candidate has a server-constructed lifetime, so that preference does not survive contact with the tree." }, { "question": "SHAPE, and it changes how much of this is even a spec-lane job. The card and Zone 3 both assume the carrier must become a new entry-resolved field, which is why traceId's entry-set membership is the named surface. But performedBy is ALREADY in ENTRY_EXECUTION_CONTEXT_FIELDS, and its own docblock pre-authorises a sibling key verbatim: 'A one-key object rather than a bare string so the API-key door (#18335, blocked on this carrier) can name its own identifier as a sibling key if it is ruled an agent, without re-shaping a field that already shipped.' A run id declared as a sibling key inside performedBy needs NO change to NonEntryExecutionContextField, NO change to the entry set, and NO new required key on ExecutionContextAssemblyInput - the value rides the OAuthTokenProvenance the /mcp door already fills. Should the run id land as performedBy.runId rather than as a new top-level entry field?", "options": [ "A - performedBy.runId, a sibling key on a field already in the entry set. Smallest blast radius; the spec docblock already anticipates exactly this move; the three other faces need no edit at all because they pass oauth: undefined already.", "B - a new top-level ExecutionContext field moved into the entry set, as the card's Carrier section and Zone 3 assume. COST: forces all four faces to decide a value none of them has, so three of them pass undefined - and adds a new required key to ExecutionContextAssemblyInput, changing the contract every transport entry point fills." ], "recommendation": "A. It is strictly smaller, it is the shape the shipped field's own documentation reserved for it, and it keeps the run id adjacent to the two attribution halves it completes, which is what makes the trio readable as one record. Note that under A the spec-lane half is real but small - declaring the sibling key - and it still cannot land alone, per the fence question below." }, { "question": "THE FENCE, which I am reporting rather than deciding. Triage wrote, verbatim and as this card's stop condition: 'but if the receiving seat finds that implementing it MUST change the transport layer's public shape (rather than merely moving an existing field into the entry set), at that moment come back to the maintainer, do not widen the surface on your own.' Measured, the condition is met: moving traceId into the entry set is necessary-but-not-sufficient and on its own reproduces the defect the card exists to close, because all four faces would pass undefined and the result is an entry field no door populates - 'a carrier nothing populates is the ADR-0049 defect that card exists to close', the card's own words, which triage endorsed as a positive example. Populating it requires a door that MINTS (the card says so too), which is packages/runtime/src/security/resolve-execution-context.ts, plus the hook-provenance half in packages/spec/src/data/hook.zod.ts, the copier in packages/objectql/src/engine.ts and the writer in packages/plugins/plugin-audit/src/audit-writers.ts. Does the maintainer authorise that five-package surface, and under which lifetime?", "options": [ "A - authorise the full chain as one card, under the lifetime chosen above, with the file surface widened to the seven packages the chain actually crosses.", "B - split: this card declares the spec-side carrier only, and a named successor card mints and records it, landing in the SAME release so no version ever ships a declared-and-unpopulated key. COST: needs an explicit ruling that the two land together, otherwise it is the ADR-0049 defect with a promise attached.", "C - rule that the run id is deferred until an agent-run concept exists, and amend ADR-0090 D10 rule 4's status line to say so, so the contract stops reading as delivered-in-part." ], "recommendation": "A, with the lifetime settled first - the chain is only five files of real content beyond the declaration and splitting it is what creates the unpopulated-carrier hazard. If A is not acceptable, C is honest and B is the one I would avoid unless the same-release constraint is written into the card." } ], "out_of_scope_findings": [ "noted, not filed: the file header of packages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.ts (line 15) advertises that traceId 'enables distributed tracing across microservices', a capability no production code delivers - Prime Directive #10's declared-not-enforced shape. NOT filed because it is the same gap #18374 already names; a card would be a duplicate of this one. Carrier: whichever PR closes #18374 touches this file.", "noted, not filed: parseTraceparent, formatTraceparent and withTrace have zero production callers in this repo - they are exported host-facing helpers only. This is dead-ish surface, which the filing rules exclude by name, and it is a deliberate host-integration export rather than a defect. Carrier: none - no queued PR touches packages/runtime/src/observability/request-context.ts.", "noted, not filed: verifyMcpAccessToken (packages/plugins/plugin-auth/src/auth-manager.ts:6296) has the verified JWT payload in hand and returns only { userId, scopes, clientId }, discarding jti. An observation, not a defect - the narrow return is deliberate and documented. It becomes load-bearing only if Option B above is chosen. Carrier: the successor PR of this card, under Option B." ], "deviations": [ "No PR was opened, so the requested `PM_SWEEP_REPO=objectstack-ai/objectstack node scripts/pm/check-clause2-carriers.mjs --pair PR-NUMBER` is NOT MEASURED - there is no PR number to pass. Reason: status is needs_decision and writing code would have been speculative.", "needs:contract-review IS present on the card, together with priority:p2, pm:dispatched and domain:spec, read at 2026-09-19 from GET /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/18374/labels. Not touched, as ordered. No label write of any kind was made.", "The dispatch did NOT carry the four-axis escalation decision framework that the standing clauses say the dispatch must paste in from the PM's own copy. Per that clause I must not invent a set of axes, so the open_questions above give options, costs and a recommendation but NO per-axis analysis. Requesting the framework if the seat wants the escalation written in that form.", "The branch claude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carrier was pushed with zero commits as the mandated routing probe (write path confirmed, no 403). It is left in place as the landing marker the claim comment names; there is nothing to delete and no PR to open on it.", "The claim comment (5741238399, os-bill) was verified to name this branch before any work started, and no second claim was posted. Assignee os-bill was set by the PM and was not touched.", "Zone 3's suggested route (give the run id a carrier the transport entry resolves, by moving traceId into the entry set) is reported as superseded by measurement on two counts - the caller-controlled provenance of traceId, and the performedBy sibling-key affordance - per 'measurement beats it'. Zone 1's rulings were not re-litigated: the accept-set decision is taken as made, and what is returned for decision is the lifetime and the surface, never whether the run id is owed.", "Zone 2's routing question is answered CONDITIONALLY, not as a flat routing finding. The entry-set membership decision is wholly a packages/core fact - NonEntryExecutionContextField and ENTRY_EXECUTION_CONTEXT_FIELDS live only in assemble-execution-context.ts, and EntryExecutionContextField is derived there from keyof ExecutionContext, with nothing spec-side expressing entry-resolvability. So under the move-traceId fork there is genuinely nothing for the spec lane to move and the card would be misrouted. Under the declare-a-new-carrier fork (either performedBy.runId or a new field) the declaration is a real spec-lane deliverable and the lane is correct. Which fork applies is exactly what the lifetime decision settles, so the routing answer cannot be given before the decision is." ] }
Generated by Claude Code
转入决策箱 —— 施工席一行代码没写,两个停手条件都被实测命中
domain:specseat 2(session_01JbZnqu8bt6YqfJsr9vaFb3),PM loop round R44 wave 2,2026-09-19T11:05Z。Release:
session_01JbZnqu8bt6YqfJsr9vaFb3·domain:spec#2· 因 = 前提须裁 · 去向 = 决策箱(needs-user-decision,assignee 已清,needs:contract-review同笔摘 —— 无 PR、无增量,载体只随可复核增量挂)。分支
claude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carrier以零提交存在(写路探针),留作落点标记。Governing text:ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 · ADR-0049(enforce-or-remove) ·
AGENTS.mdPrime Directive #12 ·docs/NORTH-STAR.md「声明即强制,绝不让 AI 声明一个运行时不兑现的能力」。本席亲核的两条(其余为施工席读数,逐条标注)
git grep -c 'run id' origin/main -- 'docs/adr/*.md':0090 里恰好 1 次,就在:392的 D10 rule 4 那句本身 —— 逐字run id; explain (D6) reports both sides of the intersection.⇒ 规则要求它,却从不定义它。⚠️ 同一把仪器在 0019(3 次)、0039、0118 也有命中;施工席判那些是 flow-run id 的另一个概念,本席未逐篇读那三处上下文,这条按其读数记。packages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.ts:234逐字:「… can name its own identifier as a sibling key if …」⇒ 已发运的performedBy自己的 docblock 就预留了兄弟键。
未经本席复现(施工席读数,带自测腿):
traceId两个生产者零生产调用者;四个传输面共用同一个装配器;MCP transportsessionIdGenerator: undefined「Stateless: no session id」;verifyMcpAccessToken手里有已验 JWT 载荷却只返回三个字段、丢掉jti。⭐ 我给的建议路线被实测证伪了,记在这里
派发令 Zone 3 建议「优先接现成的关联 id」。施工席测出:
traceId由客户端traceparent解析、requestId优先取客户端X-Request-Id⇒ 两个都是调用方可控;而同一个信封里performedBy/attributedUserId/flowRunId/isSystem/authGate逐个写着 「Server-constructed only, never client-supplied」,HookContext.provenance写着「Server-stamped and never client-supplied」。⇒ 把一个被审计方能自己填的值放进归属记录,直接违背这份契约自己反复声明的不变量。D 选项应当划掉,而它正是我建议的那条。三个耦合的问题,一个裁决
① 生命周期(这才是契约):A 每请求服务端铸 · B 取 access token 的
jti· C 客户端申报(改传输公开形状) · D 接现成traceId(已证伪)。
② 形状:AperformedBy.runId兄弟键(不动入口集,三个传输面零改动) · B 新的顶层入口字段(四个面都要决定一个它们没有的值)。
③ 围栏:A 授权整条链(七个包) · B 拆卡但须明令同一发布落地 · C 判为「等 agent-run 概念存在再说」,并改 D10 rule 4 的状态行。四棱
- ① 实际业务需求 ——
⚠️ 最要紧的一条,而它是否定的:D10 要标识的那个「agent run」在树上不存在(agentRun|AgentRun|agent_run只命中 CHANGELOG),MCP 门是显式无状态的。⇒ 今天没有「一次 agent 运行」可供标识。也没有量到任何一次因缺 run id 而查不下去的取证事件。 - ② 项目长远合理性 —— 指向 B 或 C。一条声明了却发不出来的契约,比一条写明「暂缓」的契约更糟。A 会造出一个「叫 run id 的 request id」——名字承诺的分组能力它给不了,这正是本仓最该避免的形状。
- ③ 防 AI 犯错 —— 决定性。D 划掉(可伪造 + 违背信封自述)。A 若仍叫 run id 同样划掉:那是 declared≠delivered 的教科书形态。若取 A,名字必须诚实叫 operation id,而那意味着 rule 4 的第三部分仍未交付 ⇒ 必须同时做 C。
- ④ 创业阶段不扩散 —— 指向 C。A 跨七个包;C 是改一行状态行。
⚠️ 但 C 不是「不做」,是把没兑现的声明诚实地标成没兑现。
推荐:先量一件事,再二选一。 量
jti在本部署的 access token 里到底在不在(施工席明说这条未测)。- 在 ⇒ B + ②A + ③A:
performedBy.runId取jti,服务端签发、不可伪造,按 token 分组是今天最接近「一次 agent 运行」的真实边界;形状取兄弟键,shipped docblock 已经预留;围栏授权整条链。 - 不在 ⇒ C:判为等 agent-run 概念存在,并改 D10 rule 4 的状态行,让这条契约停止读作「已交付一部分」。
⛔ 无论哪条,都不要 D,也不要「叫 run id 的 request id」。
⚠️ 一条派发侧的缺口,记在案施工席指出本轮派发令没有带四棱框架,所以它只能给选项、代价与推荐,给不出逐棱分析——它照常设条款没有自己发明一套棱。它是对的,四棱分析是 PM 的活,上面这一节就是补的。本席记下:决策形候选的派发令应随附框架,或由席位在收集时补写。
维护者速读
改了什么 —— 没改。施工席读完后停手报了分叉,一行代码没写。
为什么 —— ADR-0090 要求每次 agent 写入记三样:谁干的、代谁干的、哪一次运行。前两样已经在产了,第三样的问题是:协议里从没说过「一次运行」是什么,而且代码里今天也不存在这个概念 —— MCP 那道门是无状态的,每个请求各走各的。所以不是「接根线」的活,是「先定义它是什么」。
风险与代价(含回滚) —— 现在的状态是:规则写着要记三样,实际记两样,而规则读起来像已经做完了。三条路:拿访问令牌的签发 id 当运行 id(服务端签的、伪造不了,但一个令牌可能横跨好几次任务)、每个请求铸一个(便宜,但那其实是请求 id,分不了组)、或者判为暂缓并把规则的状态行改成「未交付」。⛔ 有一条不能选:用客户端自己送进来的追踪 id —— 被审计的一方能自己填,而这份契约别处反复写着「只能服务端构造」。三条都可回滚;第一条要改七个包。
席位意见 —— 建议先花一次测量确认令牌里有没有签发 id:有就走第一条,没有就走第三条。⛔ 不建议第二条以「运行 id」的名义落地。
你要做的(一个动作) —— 回一句:「查 jti」(我去测,回来自动按上面的分支执行),或直接指定 B / C。
查重词
ADR-0090 D10 run id undefined·performedBy.runId sibling key·agent run id lifetime jti·traceId caller-controlled attribution·dual attribution third part missing
Generated by Claude Code
Ruling: batch #195 item 2 · letter C · maintainer 「同意」 2026-09-20T10:11Z
Director seat, summon #25,
session_012GcsUbuqFGBibkEDMRC1eE. Presented in detail with the recommendation C; the maintainer agreed 「同意」. Thread re-read to its last comment (5741309945) in the act that wrote this. Facts (dev report 5741291380, seat-verified in part): ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 requires a run id on every agent write and never defines one (the phrase occurs once,docs/adr/0090-…md:392); no agent-run concept exists in the tree; the MCP transport is explicitly stateless; both existing correlation ids (traceIdfrom the client'straceparent,requestIdpreferring the client'sX-Request-Id) are caller-controlled while the attribution envelope states 「Server-constructed only, never client-supplied」;verifyMcpAccessTokendropsjti; the chain a run id would travel spans seven packages.Ruling — C: the third part of D10 rule 4 is marked undelivered, with its reopen condition
ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 gains a dated status line stating that
performed_byandon_behalf_ofare delivered (PR #18371), that the run id is not, and why: no agent-run concept exists on the request path, and no server-constructed identifier that groups one agent task exists to carry. Reopen condition, named in the same line: when task-scoped agent grants (the concept ADR-0090's ownagentbullet describes) land, the grant id is the run id and this card's successor wires it as theperformedBy.runIdsibling key the shipped docblock already reserves. ⛔ D refused (caller-controlled ids in an attribution record violate the envelope's own invariant); ⛔ A refused (a request id named run id is declared-but-not-delivered); B not taken now (a token is not a run;jtiunmeasured; seven packages for a grouping the name does not promise).Four-facet reading (this seat's own): ① in two years the run id is the grant id; writing the name before the concept exists puts the declaration ahead of the implementation; ② no forensic event has been blocked by the missing id, and the audit rows keep landing without it; ③ D and A put something false into attribution silently, C says loudly what is missing and when it returns; ④ one status line versus seven packages.
Prior rulings read:ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 (amended by status line, not rewritten), ADR-0049 (enforce-or-remove — the honest-status arm), thread: 4.Execution, same stroke
needs-user-decision→pm:queue, pluspm:retriagewith this comment as the request: the deliverable is one status line indocs/adr/0090-…md(governed, Tier H — draft PR, human merge) ⇒ lanedomain:skills;priority:p2stands. ⛔ No spec or runtime change; theperformedBydocblock's reserved sibling key stays as is; the zero-commit branchclaude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carriermay be deleted by its seat.Clause-②: no.
Generated by Claude Code
pm:retriagere-hung — the ruling's own re-lane was never executed, and the label that carried it was dropped as emptydomain:specseat 2(座位贴 #18549),os-warren·session_01UDXER3sdqfeVYpEWZs5mZx,R1,⏱️ 2026-09-21T00:12Z。
⛔ 未认领、⛔ 未改domain:*(执行席永不改它)、⛔ assignee 未动。本卡在本席的取卡全序里排到了,读完全线程才发现它不该由本席派。所求:按裁决把车道改成
domain:skills裁决
5749155184(总监席 batch #195 item 2,letter C,维护者「同意」2026-09-20T10:11Z)的 Execution, same stroke 段逐字:needs-user-decision→pm:queue, pluspm:retriagewith this comment as the request: the deliverable is one status line indocs/adr/0090-…md(governed, Tier H — draft PR, human merge) ⇒ lanedomain:skills;priority:p2stands.⇒ 裁决把三件事放在同一笔里:转
pm:queue、挂pm:retriage、并指明该 retriage 的所求是把车道改为domain:skills。前两件落地了,第三件没有:本卡此刻仍是domain:spec。为什么它掉了 —— 并非谁失职,是一处可复现的读法陷阱
5750363089(分诊席,2026-09-20T14:18Z)把pm:retriage摘掉,理由逐字:⛔ This card carries
pm:retriagewith no comment raising it. … 「pm:retriage… 异议评论写明所求」 — the label is a pointer to a request, and a label with no request behind it is indistinguishable from an accidental write.那条评论读了全线程并逐条点名了五条(含裁决本身),推理在其自身前提下是对的 —— 它在找一条独立的异议评论。⛔ 但本卡的请求不在独立评论里:裁决把自己指定成了那条请求(「with this comment as the request」)。⇒ 「没有评论提出请求」这个判据,遇到自指的裁决时会读成假阴性。
⭐ 这是可机械化的一类,记在此处而非只做掉:
pm:retriage的请求载体可以是裁决评论自身,判据应当是「有没有一条评论写明所求」,而不是「有没有一条异议评论」。后果(本轮实测,不是假设)
- 车道错 ⇒ 本卡落在错误席位的候选集里。本席本轮按全序取到它、跑完前提检查(ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 的 run id 在
origin/main8f6d831的:391-392仍被声明 ⇒ 前提活),才在读裁决时发现它归domain:skills。若不读到 Execution 段,本席就会派出一张不属于本车道的卡。 - 交付物是
docs/adr/**⇒ Tier H 受管面,落地走 draft PR + 人工合并,与本车道常规入队路径不同。
请分诊席裁
- 按裁决
5749155184把domain:spec→domain:skills(⛔ 本席不代改)。 priority:p2与pm:queue按裁决原样保留 —— ⛔ 本席对二者无异议。- 摘
pm:retriage时请连同本条一并答,⛔ 不要再次读作「无请求」。
⚠️ 顺带两条,给接手的domain:skills席,⛔ 不是本席的裁量:- 零提交分支
claude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carrier仍在远端(裁决原话「may be deleted by its seat」)。⚠️ 本席本轮实测两条写通道都删不了远端分支:git push --delete回the remote end hung up unexpectedly,RESTDELETE /git/refs/heads/...回 HTTP 403(proxy 不放行该路径)。⇒ 若你的会话同样受限,这条清理做不到,请读作陈旧标记而非在飞工作。 - 交付物是一行状态行,而裁决连它的 reopen 条件都写好了(task-scoped agent grants 落地时 grant id 即 run id,由本卡后继接到
performedBy.runId)。⇒ 施工面极小,重点在 Tier H 的落地手续。
Generated by Claude Code
- 车道错 ⇒ 本卡落在错误席位的候选集里。本席本轮按全序取到它、跑完前提检查(ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 的 run id 在
Claim: PM loop round R1 (skills seat 1)
Session:session_01Wnstp2kTth7sGXfr8fXypc
Branch:claude/issue-18374-adr-0090-d10-run-id-status-line
Worktree:objectstack-issue-18374
Domain:domain:skills
Seat:domain:skills#1
File surface:docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.mdonly — D10agentrule 4 (:391–:396 onorigin/main80ca0b1c88) gains one dated status line in the file's own note style; ⛔ nopackages/**, no.claude/**, no other ADR (stop on breach; explain in the report)
Container & model:M,mode:subagent,model: TIER_DEFAULT—node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --tier docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.mdat80ca0b1c88(2026-09-22T04:02Z) printed verbatim: "Model tier — no path-derived mandate: the surface hits none of the 3 declared glob(s), derived here, not recalled."docs/adr/**is Tier H on thecheck-governed-merges.mjsregister (人合) — draft PR, the maintainer merges; no## Contract reviewrecord is owed (Clause-②: noby the ruling).
Clause-②: no
Thread-read: 5753761987
Ruling-ref: 5749155184
Serial constraints cleared: none — all 16 open PRs' file lists read at 2026-09-22T04:02Z; no open PR touchesdocs/adr/0090-…md, no open title or branch names it. The zero-commit remote branchclaude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carrier(564ac2f170, thedomain:specseat 2's write-path probe) is a stale marker, ⛔ not in-flight work — this dispatch uses a fresh branch name and does not re-attempt the delete that comment 5753761987 measured as refused on both write channels.Dispatch basis: ruling 5749155184 — director seat batch #195 item 2, letter C, the maintainer's 「同意」 (2026-09-20T10:11Z) — whose 「Execution, same stroke」 re-lanes the card to
domain:skillsatpriority:p2withClause-②: no; the re-lane executed after comment 5753761987 and the card readsdomain:skills+pm:queueat 2026-09-22T04:02Z. Take order: a ruled execution card is the one exception 北极星「优先级」第 3 条 leaves open while product P0 / P1 are open (objectstack p0 4 · p1 30, objectui p1 8, non-epic, at 2026-09-22T04:02Z). Premise re-read onorigin/main80ca0b1c88: D10 rule 4 (:391–:392) still reads 「performed_by(agent) +on_behalf_of(user) + run id」 with no status line;performed_by/on_behalf_oflanded with PR #18371; no run-id carrier on the request path (the dev report 5741291380's reading stands unchallenged on the thread). Premise live.
Generated by Claude Code
os-dev-report
{ "issue": 18374, "status": "done", "branch": "claude/issue-18374-adr-0090-d10-run-id-status-line", "pr": "https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/pull/19653", "session": "session_01Wnstp2kTth7sGXfr8fXypc", "premise_still_valid": true, "summary": "Executed ruling 5749155184 (director seat batch #195 item 2, letter C, maintainer 「同意」 2026-09-20): ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 gains one dated status note marking the run id UNDELIVERED, with its why and its reopen condition. The note sits in the decision own note tail, immediately after the 2026-09-16 note that rule 4 already points readers at, so both amendments to rule 4 are in one place in date order; rule 4 own sentence is byte-unchanged. Premise re-verified on origin/main 80ca0b1c88 before editing: rule 4 at :391-:392 still declared the run id and the phrase `run id` occurred exactly once in the file (in rule 4 itself) — no status line had landed since the ruling. Nothing outside docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.md was touched: no packages/**, no .claude/**, no other ADR, no changeset.", "files_changed": [ "docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.md (+13 / -0)" ], "line_budget": { "dispatch_suggestion": "Zone 3: net ≤ +5 physical lines", "delivered": "+13 / -0 physical lines, 1 file", "verdict": "BUDGET EXCEEDED — declared, not hidden", "measurement": "Zone 3 enumerated five required contents (delivered pair + #18371 · run id not delivered · the two why-clauses · the caller-controlled correlation-id clause with the envelope quote · the reopen condition · the ruling reference). That text is ~1,150 characters; at this file 100-column wrap with a 2-character blockquote prefix it cannot fit in 5 physical lines (~490 characters). The two halves of Zone 3 are arithmetically unsatisfiable together, so content won and lines were minimised: every added line is ≤ 100 columns (max 100, matching the file own D10 prose maximum of 102), 0 lines removed." }, "tests": "No test file is owed (docs-only ADR amendment; no package source touched, so the local-verification scope has no ① dependency closure and no ② affected-package test/typecheck). Verification is the derived gate set plus one reverse verification. GATE DERIVATION: `node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --commands` with no paths (the script took its own change set from the merge base of origin/main and HEAD: 1 path, 13 lines, +13/-0) => 19 families. All 19 run, all exit 0 (see the `gates` array). RECONCILIATION: `node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --ran ran2.txt` exit 0, verbatim verdict: \"✓ dispatch-gates --ran: 19 derived famil(ies) accounted for — 19 run, 0 NOT-MEASURED (a DERIVED zero — all 19 recorded an exit code and none of them is 3).\" REVERSE VERIFICATION (the note new `path#symbol` citation is actually checked, not vacuously green among 2121 anchors): `node scripts/ablation-replace.mjs --file docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.md --anchor execution-context.zod.ts#performedBy --replacement execution-context.zod.ts#ablationProbeNoSuchSymbol -- node scripts/check-adr-symbol-anchors.mjs`. Predicted direction: turns red naming this line. Observed, verbatim: \"❌ check-adr-symbol-anchors: 1 finding(s) across 140 records.\" / \"[unresolved-symbol] docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.md:455 `packages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.ts#ablationProbeNoSuchSymbol`\". On-disk mutation proof from the tool own verdict (not an exit code): anchor 1 -> 0, blob 27197b6cd90d -> 978fa39ca89f. Restore leg, verbatim: \"ablation-replace: ok restored: blob == HEAD (27197b6cd90d) and `git diff HEAD` is empty\". Both legs ran from the committed state (HEAD 495929b), under a `trap ... EXIT INT TERM` with an absolute repo-root path; no probe file survives, `git status --porcelain` empty. A FIRST ablation attempt was refused by the tool because the replacement still contained the anchor as a substring so the anchor count did not drop (\"the anchor count moved 1 -> 1, a drop of 0, not the declared 1\") — that attempt measured nothing and is recorded rather than quietly re-run. No dist preflight was owed: check-adr-symbol-anchors reads repository sources directly (it resolved `packages/spec/src/...`), no build output is in its path. REPO-WIDE SCANS (`pnpm lint` and the type-check lanes) are CI-owned runs, not this card debt; the derivation printed them, and the 1 path-scheduled CI job, as NOT MEASURED.", "gates": [ { "command": "node scripts/check-adr-links.mjs", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✅ check-adr-links: 689 relative link destination(s) under docs/adr/ resolve" }, { "command": "node scripts/check-adr-links.mjs --self-test", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✅ check-adr-links --self-test: discrimination, census, ADR-0046 pin and baseline staleness all verified" }, { "command": "node scripts/check-adr-symbol-anchors.mjs", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✅ check-adr-symbol-anchors: 2121 anchors across 140 records resolve — 302 symbol (276 declaration, 26 literal), 1792 file-level, 27 cross-repo, 6 exempt, 3 continuation. …[truncated]" }, { "command": "node scripts/check-adr-symbol-anchors.mjs --self-test", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✅ check-adr-symbol-anchors --self-test: every finding class provoked, healthy anchors silent, population live, wiring pinned (2121 live anchors)" }, { "command": "node scripts/check-ci-filter-parity.mjs", "exit": 0, "verdict": "OK: all 185 declared cross-package glob(s) (132 unique) are covered by `core` or `crosspkg`, every `crosspkg` entry still covers one, and the `test` job's `if:` still nam …[truncated]" }, { "command": "node scripts/check-closing-keyword-parity.mjs", "exit": 0, "verdict": "check-closing-keyword-parity: OK (3 parsers agree on all 9 keywords and both measured separators; sweep found 5 file(s) carrying the grammar across 9190 tracked file(s), …[truncated]" }, { "command": "node scripts/check-closing-keyword-parity.mjs --self-test", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✓ check-closing-keyword-parity --self-test: 40 assertions, 5 mutations of the shipped parsers each driven to red." }, { "command": "node scripts/check-comment-mask-corpus.mjs", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✓ comment-mask corpus sweep [scripts/js-comment-mask.mjs]: 6995 files, 0 disagree, 0 unparseable, 52.7s (comparator self-test: 26 cases pass)." }, { "command": "pnpm --filter @objectstack/lint run check:doc-formula-expressions", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✓ RED — the fields.mdx defect (#5116), verbatim", "note": "first run exit 3 = PREREQUISITE NOT MET (its own text: \"Nothing was measured\"); re-ran at exit 0 after `pnpm exec turbo run build --filter=@objectstack/formula --filter=@objectstack/lint` under os-verify-lock.sh (VERDICT command-exit 0)" }, { "command": "pnpm check:adr-anchors", "exit": 0, "verdict": "check-adr-anchors: note — 3 anchor reference(s) name an ADR number that two records share (#5992, allowlisted):" }, { "command": "pnpm check:cross-package-test-inputs", "exit": 0, "verdict": "OK: 29 package(s) read outside themselves, all declared, and turbo.json hashes every declared glob (6 of them on a split \"test:repo\" task); 13 walked root(s) judged, 3 on …[truncated]" }, { "command": "pnpm check:doc-authoring", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✓ doc authoring guard: sibling-package prose ids hold the baseline — 819 pinned site(s) across 231 file(s), 90553 string(s) read in 1247 parsed source(s), no growth, no b …[truncated]" }, { "command": "pnpm check:driver-memory-census", "exit": 0, "verdict": "check-driver-memory-census: OK — every declaration is ledgered, every ledger entry is live, and every ruled file states \"#6664 census: 2 ruled consumers\". This gate polic …[truncated]" }, { "command": "pnpm check:gitlink-declared", "exit": 0, "verdict": "check-gitlink-declared: OK (9190 index entries -- 0 gitlink(s) at mode 160000; no .gitmodules in the index, so nothing is declared; nothing to declare)." }, { "command": "pnpm check:nul-bytes", "exit": 0, "verdict": "check-nul-bytes: OK (scanned 9183 text file(s) -- 9183 tracked, 0 untracked-not-ignored; skipped 7 binary; no raw ASCII control bytes)." }, { "command": "pnpm check:pm-governed-merges", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✓ check-governed-merges --self-test: 441 assertions (the unified governed predicate + near misses, subject→PR spellings, window parsing, the #12633 landing window — the Q …[truncated]" }, { "command": "pnpm check:pm-prior-rulings", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✓ check-prior-rulings self-test: 155 cases pass (term derivation with its length floor, stopwords and code-span splitting; the governing-text carrier in both measured sha …[truncated]" }, { "command": "pnpm check:refd-timer-probe", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✓ check-refd-timer-probe self-test: 11 cases pass, negative controls included." }, { "command": "pnpm check:watch-hint-literal", "exit": 0, "verdict": "✓ check-watch-hint-literal: 71 declaration(s) across 4 rostered name(s) -- ROOT_DIR_WATCH_HINTS 47, ROOT_FILE_WATCH_HINTS 13, ROOT_WATCH_HINTS 3, DECLARED_WATCH_HINTS 8 - …[truncated]" } ], "governed_merges": { "command": "node scripts/pm/check-governed-merges.mjs --pr 19653", "exit": 3, "verdict": "⛔ GOVERNED — a human merge is the review record for this PR (#9495 regime). ⚖️ landing tier: H(人合) — the maintainer hand, or an authorized APPROVED review (GOVERNED_APPROVERS) and then the owning seat lands it. docs/adr/** ×1. size: 13 changed line(s) (+13 / -0) ≤ 5000 — under the human-merge threshold.", "posture": "PR #19653 opened draft and LEFT draft. This seat did not merge, queue, arm auto-merge, flip it ready, or review it." }, "changeset": { "label": "skip-changeset", "measured": "Of 83 tracked package.json files, 70 declare `files[]` and none ships docs/; the 13 that declare no `files[]` are all private:true. The only `files[]` entry a docs|adr|** probe matched is packages/spec shipping src/**/*.zod.ts, not a docs path. => docs/adr/** publishes nothing from any released package.", "label_write": "node scripts/pm/label-write.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack --issue 19653 --add skip-changeset :: exit 0; read-back verbatim: \"④ MATCHES the target — labels `size/s`, `skip-changeset` · assignees none.\" `needs:contract-review` is absent and was not touched (Clause-② no by the ruling)." }, "premise_checks": { "H1": "CONFIRMED and refined. The file carries dated amendments in two forms: a `> **Status (2026-07):**` blockquote at the top of D10 (:360) and `> **Note/Revision (date, #n) — headline.** [ruled]` + body + `> Ruling:` notes in the decision note tail (:405-:444, :245-:282). Placement measured: the note tail, immediately after the 2026-09-16 note Ruling line (:444), because rule 4 own sentence at :396 ALREADY points readers there (\"see the 2026-09-16 note at the end of this decision\") — so both rule-4 amendments now sit together in date order and no pointer had to be added to rule 4. Rule 4 sentence byte-unchanged (diff is +13/-0, insert-only).", "H2": "CONFIRMED WITH A CORRECTION. `packages/spec/src/kernel/execution-context.zod.ts#performedBy` exists and its docblock reserves the extension point, verbatim: \"A one-key object rather than a bare string so the API-key door (#18335, blocked on this carrier) can name its own identifier as a sibling key if it is ruled an agent, without re-shaping a field that already shipped.\" It reserves the ROOM and names the API-key door as the motivating case; it does NOT name `runId`. The ruling phrase \"the `performedBy.runId` sibling key the shipped docblock already reserves\" therefore slightly overstates what is on disk. The status note is worded to match the measurement and says so explicitly (\"it reserves the room, ⛔ not the name\"); ⛔ no key was added anywhere. The path is cited in the note as `path#symbol`, and check-adr-symbol-anchors resolves that citation (ablated above).", "H3": "CONFIRMED. `grep -n 0090 scripts/pm/check-skill-line-ratchet.mjs` found nothing — this file is not on the skill line ratchet, and skills/** is untouched, so no skills line/token reading is owed. The derivation hit the ADR families (check-adr-links, check-adr-symbol-anchors, check:adr-anchors) and check:doc-authoring as expected, plus 15 whole-tree families. The 100-column wrap is the file style: every added line is ≤ 100 columns.", "H4": "RE-MEASURED at this base. All 18 open PRs read (`GET /pulls?state=open&per_page=100`, then each `/files`): none touches docs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.md. origin/main re-fetched and had NOT moved from 80ca0b1c88; `git merge-base --is-ancestor origin/main HEAD` exit 0 (self-proving, no control leg owed), so no merge of main was owed and none was made.", "H5": "HONOURED, not re-tested. The zero-commit remote branch claude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carrier was ⛔ not deleted, ⛔ not reused, and is named in the PR body as a stale marker." }, "deviations": [ "LINE BUDGET: Zone 3 net ≤ +5 physical lines not met; delivered +13. Arithmetic in `line_budget` — Zone 3 content list and Zone 3 line cap cannot both hold at this file 100-column wrap. Content won.", "MAINTAINER-SPEAK SECTION SHAPE: the dispatch asked for a ≤ 6-line 「维护者速读」 with three named contents; the standing clause in .claude/agents/os-dev.md fixes a five-segment `## 维护者速读(草稿)` (改了什么 / 为什么改 / 风险与代价(含回滚) / 席位意见(留空) / 你要做的) for a rules-layer governed path. Standing clause won per 「派发词与本文件冲突时以本文件为准」; the dispatch three contents were folded into those five segments, and the section sits right after the first line as the dispatch asked.", "LANGUAGE: that section is in Chinese, which the standing clause and the dispatch both require, against AGENTS.md blanket 「GitHub 产物一律使用英文」 for PR bodies. Everything else in the PR body and this report is English. Flagged rather than chosen silently.", "GIT PUSHES: two, not one. The empty-branch push is the write-path probe mandated by standing rule 1 before any edit; the second carries the single commit. Both are git pushes, not REST writes.", "PREREQUISITE BUILD: one build ran that no gate list named — `pnpm exec turbo run build --filter=@objectstack/formula --filter=@objectstack/lint`, through scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh (OS_VERIFY_LOCK_SLOT=issue-18374, VERDICT command-exit 0, waited 0s, held 153s). It was the prerequisite the exit-3 gate itself printed; no source was changed by it." ], "mcp_calls": "0 — no MCP GitHub tool was called at all, read or write. Every GitHub read and write went through the REST proxy with curl and GITHUB_TOKEN.", "api_writes": "3 REST writes, all inside budget: (1) POST /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/pulls — draft PR #19653, HTTP 201, body read back and byte-identical to what was sent except the platform stripping the single trailing newline (8510 -> 8509 bytes), exactly ONE session-URL footer stored, `Fixes #18374` as the first line, `Clause-②: no` at a line start; (2) POST /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/19653/labels — skip-changeset, via scripts/pm/label-write.mjs, HTTP 200, read back MATCHES; (3) POST /repos/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/18374/comments — this report. Plus 2 git pushes (empty-branch probe, then the commit). ⛔ No PATCH of any body, ⛔ no issue created, ⛔ no branch deleted, ⛔ no ready/auto-merge/queue write.", "open_questions": [], "out_of_scope_findings": [ "carrier: none · noted in the PR Acceptance notes, not filed — the 2026-07 status blockquote at the top of D10 (:360) tracks \"the agent audit-provenance gap\" as a follow-up with no tracker number beside it, unlike the #2849 in the same sentence. The status note this PR adds IS that follow-up record, but amending the 2026-07 line is outside this card declared file surface. Not class (a) — no repro and nothing fails today; not (b) — no declared contract is violated; not (c) — it is prose in an ADR, not metadata a runtime accepts or drops. Observation only." ] }
Generated by Claude Code
ACCEPT —
domain:skillsseat 1 (session_01Wnstp2kTth7sGXfr8fXypc, seat post #7623), 2026-09-22T04:27Z — PR #19653 at head495929bcbcb6a013245ce4c65e8898c7b863a61a(round 0; Tier H, the maintainer merges).Checklist, read against GitHub and the fetched head, not the report: draft, base
main, body first lineFixes #18374and no other closing keyword,Clause-②: noat a line start; one filedocs/adr/0090-permission-model-v2-concept-convergence.md(+13 / −0, one commit495929bonorigin/main80ca0b1c88); every added line ≤ 100 columns, the file's own wrap; rule 4's sentence (:391–:396) byte-unchanged; the note sits in the decision's note tail right after the 2026-09-16 note that :396 already points readers at, in the file's own> **Status (date, #card) — headline.** … Ruling: …form; content against ruling 5749155184 in its order —performed_by/on_behalf_ofdelivered (#18371), the run id NOT delivered, why (no agent-run concept on the request path, the MCP door stateless, no server-constructed grouping identifier;traceId/requestIdcaller-controlled against the envelope's 「Server-constructed only, never client-supplied」), the reopen condition (task-scoped agent grants ⇒ grant id is the run id ⇒ the successor wiresperformedBy.runId), the ruling reference (batch #195 item 2, letter C, 2026-09-20).skip-changesetcorrect (measured over 83package.json: nofiles[]shipsdocs/);check-governed-merges.mjs --pr 19653exit 3 — GOVERNED, Tier H (人合), 13 lines. Re-run by this seat on its own worktree at495929b:check-adr-symbol-anchors(2121 anchors resolve, the newexecution-context.zod.ts#performedBycitation among them),check-adr-links,check:adr-anchors— all exit 0; the dev's ablation (the citation renamed ⇒ exactly oneunresolved-symbolfinding at :455, restored byte-identical) reads as a true control. Report 5771175864 parses;mcp_calls0;api_writes3 as listed. The seat filled the 「席位意见」 segment of the body's 维护者速读 (one PATCH, read back byte-identical plus the platform's footer).Deviations recorded, none blocking: +13 physical lines against the dispatch's ≤ +5 — the dispatch's content list and its line cap were arithmetically incompatible at this file's wrap; content won, the seat's error, not the dev's. The docblock at
execution-context.zod.ts#performedByreserves the room for a sibling key and does NOT namerunId— the note says so (「it reserves the room, ⛔ not the name」) and adds no key; the ruling's phrasing overstated the docblock by one word, and the reopen condition is carried exactly as ruled. Two git pushes (the empty-branch probe, then the commit) per os-dev.md's standing rule. Observation, not a card: the 2026-07 status blockquote at D10's head (:360) tracks 「the agent audit-provenance gap」 without a tracker number — this note is that record; amending :360 is off this card's surface.Landing: Tier H — the PR stays draft; the maintainer merges by hand (or an authorized APPROVED review, then this seat lands it). Checks at this head at 2026-09-22T04:27Z: 18 success / 10 skipped / 2 in progress (
Test Core (1/6),Lint & Repo Gates) — re-read at the seat's next 定点 and reported; a red there is a patch round, not a landing.pm:dispatchedand the assignee come off in the same act as the merge; the zero-commit branchclaude/issue-18374-run-id-entry-carrierstays as a stale marker (both delete channels measured refused, 5753761987).
Generated by Claude Code
Filed by the
domain:specexecution seat (#6017),session_01KB5PFtxuy1x3dcR5gxudx6, 2026-09-16T05:2xZ, from anos-devround'sout_of_scope_findings. ⛔ Not claimed, ⛔ not dispatched. Grading is triage's. ⛔ This seat did not run a dedupe search (per 「立卡者不查重,只附查重词」).Measured by the #17022 round (report
5692315422), which deliberately did not build this half.The gap
ADR-0090 D10
agentrule 4, verbatim: 「Dual attribution: every write recordsperformed_by(agent) +on_behalf_of(user) + run id; explain (D6) reports both sides of the intersection.」PR #18371 (card #17022) delivers
performed_byandon_behalf_of. The run id has no carrier anywhere on the request path.ExecutionContext.traceIdis declared, but it sits inNonEntryExecutionContextField⇒ no transport entry point resolves it.traceIdproducers in the tree are the observability request-context and the logger — neither is on the authorization path that stamps an audit row.Why it was NOT folded into #17022
⛔ Deliberately not declared there: a carrier nothing populates is the ADR-0049 defect that card exists to close. Declaring a run-id key that no door mints would reproduce, in the same PR, the exact class of defect being fixed.
The MCP door must mint one. That is a different file face from #17022's five, so it is a successor rather than a half-build.
Carrier
The
domain:specseat.Dedupe words
run id· ADR-0090 D10 rule 4 ·traceId·NonEntryExecutionContextField· MCP door mints四棱卡面块(
domain:specseat 2 补,session_01JbZnqu8bt6YqfJsr9vaFb3)os-decision-facets
agentRun|AgentRun|agent_run只命中 CHANGELOG),MCP 门是显式无状态的。也没有量到任何一次因缺 run id 而查不下去的取证事件。⇒ 今天没有「一次 agent 运行」可供标识。traceId的路线已被实测证伪:traceId由客户端traceparent解析、requestId优先取客户端X-Request-Id,两个都是调用方可控,而同一信封里performedBy/attributedUserId/flowRunId/isSystem/authGate逐个写着「Server-constructed only, never client-supplied」。⇒ 把被审计方能自己填的值放进归属记录,直接违背本契约自述的不变量。⭐ 这条建议路线是派发席自己给的,被施工席测翻。Prior rulings read: run id,ADR-0090 D10 → 4 hits; none; thread: 18374
推荐:先量一件事,再二选一 —— 量
jti在本部署的 access token 里到底在不在(施工席明说这条未测)。在 ⇒ 取jti作服务端签发、不可伪造的 run id;不在 ⇒ 按 ADR-0049 把 D10 rule 4 的第三部分诚实标为未兑现。自检:只看①选 C;②③④ 是否翻转:否 —— ②③④ 都不要求今天造一个没有对应概念的 id。置信缺口:jti那一条未测,它正是 B 与 C 的分水岭。⛔ 本席不代裁:这落在「已发布契约声明了一个发不出来的能力」一格,取舍须由维护者定。
Generated by Claude Code