Ratify add-worker-input-budget on Brett Heap's word '0.4: (a) ratify as they stand'

[brettheap]

Lane: openxfactory-1

The two words

Brett Heap gave both words on 2026-10-06, in session to lane openxfactory-1. Both are RULED lines on the estate's lane register, with object opensoft/openxFactory:openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget.

1. The ratification.

   0.4: (a) ratify as they stand

   It answers tasks.md 0.4, "Ratify or amend the two spec deltas". The question was put to him as "task 0.4: (a) ratify the two doc-health deltas as they stand, or (b) amend first", and he chose (a). RULED at 2026-10-06T13:55:03Z (opensoft/brett-wip commit 06709554, lanes/log/openxfactory-1.md).

2. The origin file.

   Ratify add-worker-input-budget on Brett Heap's word '0.4: (a) ratify as they stand' #1250: (i) add the origin file

   It answers the RULING NEEDED this PR raised on Copilot's finding r4196698454. Option (i) was put to him as adding .openspec.yaml in the ratifying commit, with values following the 2026-08-25 origin sweep b7513733. RULED at 2026-10-06T17:24:57Z (opensoft/brett-wip commit f739ab74).

This lane has held the change's claim since 2026-09-24T16:33:03Z.

What is ratified

add-worker-input-budget's two doc-health spec deltas, as they stand and with no amendment:

• MODIFIED: Sweep sequencing and snapshot consistency (three scenarios);
• ADDED: Bounded worker input budget (six scenarios).

The ratified text is specs/doc-health/spec.md blob 9a817d65. That blob is the same at #1137's merge commit 9da52e31 and on main. No requirement or scenario text moves in this PR.

The origin declaration, on the second word

Why it is needed. document-lifecycle § Proposal origin declaration says:

A proposal whose own Status: declares ratified, or any standing beyond it, SHALL carry approval provenance in its origin.

This packet had no .openspec.yaml, and it was the only active change without one.

What it declares. The new openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget/.openspec.yaml is hand-written in the form of sweep b7513733. Every value is derived from the packet's own record and is folded or plain, so the file parses:

• schema: spec-driven;
• created: 2026-09-22, from the packet's true first commit, ee2185d6 (2026-09-22T01:26:47Z);
• origin.kind: ad_hoc. No Staging ID: header and no staging topic's exit names this change, checked in both directions;
• origin.id: openxFactory:adhoc:2026-09-22-add-worker-input-budget;
• a folded reason that quotes the second word;
• the drafting pair: lane openxfactory-1, on "brief a writer to add the input-size guard", proposed_on: 2026-09-22;
• the approval pair: Brett Heap, "0.4: (a) ratify as they stand", approved_on: 2026-10-06.

What it changes.

• proposal-support.py verify add-worker-input-budget now passes, where main refuses it with "no origin declaration".
• proposal-origin's WARNING for the missing origin is gone.
• No other finding moves.

What this PR does not do

• Group 4's 4.1 sequencing question stays open. The "Sequencing tension, named rather than hidden" note in tasks.md asks Brett Heap a question. Was "land the input-size guard when green" the approved exception, or should 0.4 have gated 4.1? Neither word answers that question, and the note does not move.
• No archive. The archive is a separate act.
• No other substance moves. That covers proposal substance, code_surface:, target_release:, realization and the sequenced-after ledger row.
• It lands by SQUASH. The lane's coordinator lands it in a Rule 6 window. The archive PR is a separate landing, as a merge commit.

Every changed line, file by file

openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget/proposal.md (the front-matter header):

• Status: draft becomes Status: ratified.
• One line is added after it: Ratified: 2026-10-06 by Brett Heap (openxFactory repository owner) — …. The line carries:
  • the 0.4 word, verbatim, and the question as it was put;
  • the register RULED line;
  • both requirement names;
  • the Bound the bounded workers' input to the model's context window #1137 9da52e31 baseline;
  • "archives nothing" and "does not answer the Group 4 sequencing question on 4.1";
  • the record path.

openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget/tasks.md:

• - [ ] 0.4 Ratify or amend the two spec deltas. becomes - [x] 0.4 ….
• Ten record lines follow it: the word, the question, the RULED line, both requirement names, the 4.1 question staying open, no archive, and the record.

New: openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget/.openspec.yaml (52 lines): the declaration described above.

README.md (OpenSpec Records > Active changes, the add-worker-input-budget entry only):

• `Status: draft` becomes `Status: ratified`. A parenthetical gives:
  • the date, Brett Heap, the 0.4 word, "no amendment" and the RULED time;
  • the link to the record;
  • "the origin declaration .openspec.yaml added on his second word, verbatim "Ratify add-worker-input-budget on Brett Heap's word '0.4: (a) ratify as they stand' #1250: (i) add the origin file", RULED 2026-10-06T17:24:57Z".
• The closing sentence changes. It read: "Status: draft is unchanged: …". It now reads: "Resolving the questions ratified neither spec delta; the 2026-10-06 word did (task 0.4). RATIFICATION ONLY — the archive is a separate later act on Brett Heap's word, and the Group 4 sequencing question on 4.1 stays open."

New: openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget/review/ratification-2026-10-06.md:

• The header: Status: ratified, Kind: report, Decision date:, Ratifier:, one Ratified: citation and the ratified baseline.
• The sections:
  • Decision;
  • 1, the word;
  • 2, what the word does not decide;
  • 3, what this pull request changes, including the origin file and the second word, verbatim;
  • 4, a disclosure;
  • 5, the measurements, and the statement that this PR lands by squash.

ideation/staging/doc-health-sweep-carry-over/doc-health-sweep-carry-over.md (Copilot r4198710846, the first Conflicts bullet only):

• The status clause "add-worker-input-budget is Status: draft, its two deltas unratified (its task 0.4)" now says the packet is Status: ratified (task 0.4, Brett Heap's word of 2026-10-06) but still ACTIVE, not archived.
• A parenthesis records what the clause read before. The sequencing constraint, proposing this topic's change after that packet archives, is unchanged.

Not moved:

• specs/doc-health/spec.md;
• the Group 4 4.1 note;
• tests/sequenced_after/corpus-ledger.yaml.

Precedent followed

• Ratify amend-kill-switch-to-declared-test-companion on Brett Heap's selection "Ratify as filed" #974 (c521504c):
  • Status: draft becomes Status: ratified, with one citation line in the lifecycle header;
  • the ruled box is ticked with its record;
  • the README row is moved in place, with a bold Status: ratified and the word and the record link;
  • a RATIFICATION ONLY tail;
  • a review/ratification-<date>.md record carries Status: ratified and ONE citation.
• Ratify add-neutral-product-standalone-operability on Brett Heap's word (#656 5815412869) #1151 (cd494e4c): the closest case, an in-place ratification of a draft already on main. Copied: the one-line Ratified: form inside the front-matter, and the record's sections.
• RATIFIED (ratify 1028 as encoded — D1–D5 recommended): Propose the declared former id: a moved packet names the identity it was ratified under #1028: the record header. Decision date: and Ratifier: accompany the citation.
• Propose and ratify sanction-ratified-record-spelling: the record-citing Ratified: header joins the lifecycle rule #267: the record-citing Ratified: spelling for an in-session ruling. Both citations clear the three-way floor, and each document carries exactly one citation in its 15-line window.
• Sweep b7513733: the .openspec.yaml form, on the second word:
  • created from the true first commit;
  • an ad_hoc id carrying the created date;
  • a folded reason derived from the record and checked in both directions;
  • the approval quoted from the packet's own citation.
• Not copied: Status: and Ratified by: on tasks.md and design.md. The packet has no design.md. Its tasks.md carries no Status: header to move, and document-lifecycle does not rule tasks.md.

Landing: squash

This PR lands by SQUASH, and only a squash landing conforms to the second word. Option (i) was put as adding the origin file in the ratifying commit. On this branch the ratification is a93865f0 and the origin file is the later commit b3b7db42, so only a squash puts the two into one commit on main. The record's § 5 says the same.

The archive gate's origin-retention walk takes the FIRST commit whose proposal.md declares Status: ratified as the ratifying commit. A probe on throwaway copies measured two landings:

• Squash, the conforming landing: the squash commit is the ratifying commit and carries the origin. The walk reads "ORIGIN RETAINED … declaration unchanged since the ratifying commit". Ratify amend-kill-switch-to-declared-test-companion on Brett Heap's selection "Ratify as filed" #974 and Ratify add-neutral-product-standalone-operability on Brett Heap's word (#656 5815412869) #1151 also landed by squash.
• Merge, not conforming: the walk takes a93865f0, which has no origin, as the ratifying commit, and reads "ORIGIN RETENTION NOT COMPARABLE". The gate does not refuse that, but it leaves no retention baseline.
• Rebase, not conforming and not run: it would also land a93865f0 as a commit of its own, ahead of the origin file.

Observation (no change made)

proposal.md § Impact says "two requirements MODIFIED, one ADDED". The delta has carried one MODIFIED and one ADDED requirement since its first commit, ee2185d6. The record's § 4 discloses this. It is not corrected here, because it is proposal text.

How it was verified

All runs used full clones named openxFactory. The full set ran at the same time in two same-kind clones: main 51456835, and this branch merged with it (9e67f838). The gates and doc-health then ran again on main e6380965 and on cc0fc853. After that, the full set ran a third time on main e6380965 and on 60c38a56. All three runs gave the same results. The record's § 5 names each measured tree by sha (Copilot r4198710942).

Copilot's review 5433270341 at 60c38a56 raised no inline finding. Its "previously missed" note on record § 5 is answered in 7229fde4, which rewrites only the record's landing paragraph to say this PR lands by squash. The gates and doc-health ran again on that tree against main e6380965, with identical results. The branch then merged main c44c1610, which archived add-factory-mcp-conformance (#1252) and touched no byte of this packet. The gates and doc-health ran once more, on main c44c1610 and on that merge, 8dbb011e. The results were again identical: verify exits 1 on main and 0 on the branch, and doc-health reports 284 against 282 finding lines, the difference being only the proposal-origin WARNING. Copilot's review 5433389325 at 8dbb011e (thread r4199425241) asked that record § 5 list every tree measured. 6f4e98d1 rewrites that list as six runs, each named by sha. The gates and doc-health ran on it against main c44c1610, with identical results. Last, the branch merged main a2dc658d (#1254, no byte of this packet) as 35b17c30, and the gates and doc-health on that merge against main a2dc658d were again identical. Its other note asks to put the Group 4 sentence "is still open even as this line is written" in the past tense. That note is left as it stands, because both briefs keep the Group 4 note untouched and the sentence is anchored to when it was written.

Because the carry-over topic changed, tests/ideation_routing and tests/document_catalog also ran on main e6380965 and on 60c38a56: 86 passed on each. tests/ideation-dashboard cannot be collected in a clone without the openDox and openXdox legs; CI runs it.

gate	main	this PR
validate-openspec-cli-pin.py --all --strict	exit 0; 1 failed item, add-chain-attestation's accepted exception; 0 UNDISPOSITIONED	the same
validate-openspec-cli-pin.py --change add-worker-input-budget	exit 0; 1 passed	the same
validate-code-surface.py, validate-target-release.py, validate-scope-globs.py	exit 0	the same output
validate-sequenced-after.py ., and with --ledger-diff	exit 0	the same output; the ledger row does not move
proposal-support.py . verify add-worker-input-budget	exit 1, "no origin declaration"	exit 0, "proposal support verification ok"
doc-health.py --single-repo . --as-of 2026-10-06	284 finding lines	282: the same set without the proposal-origin WARNING's two lines. No new finding. The modified-block-currency INFO, which records the delta's deliberate rewording of canon's "is exactly" bullet, stays
pytest over tests/doc-health, sequenced_after, review_lane_pin, proposal-support, code_surface, target_release, packet_reference, citation_remainder, scope_globs, former_id_arrival and openspec_cli_pin	3581 passed, 7 failed and 3 skipped	the same, with the same 7 tests failing. All 7 come from the clone, whose openDox and openXdox legs were not initialized. CI runs the full suite

The citation checks were proven to read both files, on a throwaway copy:

• damaging either Ratified: line raised a CRITICAL ratified-provenance finding naming the damaged file;
• removing the proposal's citation raised one;
• giving the record Status: record raised one.

The intact files raise none.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[brettheap]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide

This draft PR records Brett Heap’s 2026-10-06 ruling as ratification of the two existing doc-health spec deltas, updating lifecycle metadata, task tracking, README status, and adding an auditable ratification report; it intentionally changes no requirement text, archive state, realization data, or sequencing ledger.

Flow diagram for doc-health change ratification

flowchart LR
    A["Brett Heap gives word: ratify as they stand"] --> B["RULED lane-register entry"]
    B --> C["Ratification record"]
    C --> D["proposal.md status: ratified"]
    C --> E["tasks.md 0.4 checked"]
    C --> F["README active-change status updated"]
    C --> G["Two existing spec deltas remain unchanged"]
    G --> H["Archive and Group 4 sequencing remain open"]

Loading

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Record Brett Heap’s in-session ruling as ratification of both existing doc-health spec deltas without changing their normative text.	Change the proposal status to ratified and add a traceable citation to the word, lane-register ruling, baseline, and record. Mark task 0.4 complete with the ruling and explicitly preserve the open Group 4 sequencing question and separate archive step. Add a ratification report documenting the decision, scope, exclusions, disclosure about the proposal’s requirement count, and verification results.	openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget/proposal.md openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget/tasks.md openspec/changes/add-worker-input-budget/review/ratification-2026-10-06.md
Update the repository’s active-change index to reflect the ratified lifecycle state while retaining the existing filing context.	Change the active-change status from draft to ratified and link the ratification record. Replace the prior unresolved-status wording with a ratification-only clarification that excludes archiving and leaves Group 4 sequencing open.	README.md

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

The ratified proposal lacks the required origin declaration and approval provenance, leaving strict verification failing.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1

Open (1)

• Reject ratified status when origin and approval provenance are missing · New

What changed in this PR

Records ratification of the existing worker-input-budget specification deltas without changing their text.

Changes:

• Marks the proposal and task 0.4 as ratified.
• Adds the ratification record and updates the active-change index.
• Preserves archive and sequencing questions as separate acts.

File	Description
README.md	Updates the active-change status and ratification summary.
openspec/​changes/​add-worker-input-budget/​proposal.md	Changes proposal status and records provenance.
openspec/​changes/​add-worker-input-budget/​tasks.md	Completes ratification task 0.4.
openspec/​changes/​add-worker-input-budget/​review/​ratification-2026-10-06.md	Adds the detailed ratification record.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[brettheap]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

The lifecycle transition leaves a staging record stale, and the measurement record inaccurately describes changes after its tested head.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 2

Open (2)

• Update carry-over packet status after ratification · New
• Record doc-health rerun results for current branch head · New

Resolved since last review (1)

• Reject ratified status when origin and approval provenance are missing

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

The task record remains internally contradictory, and non-squash landing would violate the origin ruling.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

Resolved since last review (2)

• Record doc-health rerun results for current branch head
• Update carry-over packet status after ratification

Previously missed (2)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Gate incorrectly permits merge despite split ratification and origin commits

openspec/​changes/​add-worker-input-budget/​review/​ratification-2026-10-06.md:176

The gate’s successful NOT COMPARABLE result does not satisfy the second ruling. The PR history puts ratification in a93865f0 and adds the origin only in b3b7db42, while option (i) was explicitly defined as adding it “in the ratifying commit”; merge or rebase would preserve that split and leave no retention baseline. Mark squash as required and merge/rebase as non-conforming instead of presenting merge as a lawful landing.

Update 0.4 status wording to past tense after 4.1 landed

openspec/​changes/​add-worker-input-budget/​tasks.md:42

Checking 0.4 makes this file internally contradictory: lines 96–98 still say that 0.4 “is still open even as this line is written.” Keep the sequencing question open, but rewrite that sentence in the past tense so it records that 0.4 was open when 4.1 landed rather than claiming the task remains open now.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

The validation history omits the final measured head and is therefore stale.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

Previously missed (1)

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Update measurement history with latest measured tree

openspec/​changes/​add-worker-input-budget/​review/​ratification-2026-10-06.md:149

This measurement history is stale again at the current head. The list stops at 60c38a56 and claims only three post-origin measured trees, but 7229fde4 subsequently changed this same record; that commit reports another gates/doc-health run against e6380965. Add that fourth measured tree so the persistent record identifies the head its results cover.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

The persistent measurement record omits two subsequently measured branch heads.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1

Open (1)

• Update measurement history with post-origin verification heads · New

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

The lifecycle status, provenance, and dependent records are consistent, with no unresolved code-review findings.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

Resolved since last review (1)

• Update measurement history with post-origin verification heads

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

Approval depends on externally recorded rulings and squash-only landing semantics that require final human verification.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

Correct landing requires squash semantics, and the cited private ruling register could not be independently verified.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[brettheap]

Lane: openxfactory-1

LANDING — lane openxfactory-1, session eb835de4-d46e-4bb7-86f3-82780be6f51e@Eagle, 2026-10-06T23:00:24Z, PR #1250 into opensoft/openxFactory main (Rule 6 window; rule6 scan CLEAR; gate PASS at head d86ce0a on main 1837ea7). On Brett Heap's word verbatim: "land the ratification PR when green".

[sourcery-ai]

Sorry @brettheap, you've used your own review budget of 250,000 diff characters for the last 7 days.

You can request another review in 18 hours and 58 minutes by commenting @sourcery-ai review. Upgrade to get a review now.

[brettheap]

Lane: openxfactory-1

LANDED — lane openxfactory-1, 2026-10-06T23:00:54Z, PR #1250 → 3cec62f (squash commit into opensoft/openxFactory main). Window closed.