Record the Attached git Option Disproof and Qualify the Refusal Field Sentence

.github/copilot-instructions.md

@@ -46,6 +46,10 @@ Review effort is user-controlled. The automation observes `Lite`, `Balanced`, or
   - **Disproved by** - reading the sentence against the snippet it describes. The subject is the noun phrase "the agent check", meaning the check for the signing agent, and "branches" is its verb, which is what the `if [ ... = ssh ]; then ssh-add -L; else gpg --list-secret-keys; fi` line does. The proposed reading needs "branches" as a plural noun, and the paragraph is section 0, before a repository exists, where the alternatives it names are the SSH and GPG forms rather than refs.
   - **Proved against** - the paragraph following the agent snippet in `STANDUP.md` section 0 on `develop` at `676a2bd`, unchanged since `77be3a3`.
   - **Delete when** - the sentence is reworded for any reason, since the entry is about this phrasing rather than about the rule it states.
+- **Git accepts an attached `-c<name>=<value>` or `-C<dir>` global option.** Raised as a P1 in both review rounds of the change that made `host-setup/agent-safety/claude/gh-write-guard.py` read an attached `-c`.
+  - **Disproved by** - running `git -cfoo.bar=1 status` and `git -C. status` on git 2.47.3. Both print `unknown option` and the usage text for the separate `-c <name>=<value>` and `-C <path>` forms. Git exits without running the subcommand, so an attached spelling never reaches a repository.
+  - **Proved against** - git 2.47.3 and `develop` at `ac78916f`.
+  - **Delete when** - the guard stops reading an attached `-c` or `-C`, or a git release accepts either attached form.
 
 ## When in Doubt
 

scripts/README.md

@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ Everything else is decidable and says so. One of the reviewer's own nodes in vie
 
 The digest reports the completed head review's effective effort as `lite`, `balanced`, or `max` when its metadata provides one. It reports `effort_source=default` for `Default (<level>)` and `effort_source=explicit` for a bare level. Missing metadata reports `unknown` for both fields. Effort is informational and never changes the coverage or completion verdict. The workflow never selects or changes the user-controlled setting.
 
-`wait` exits `41` when the review carrying the head is a **refusal**, meaning its body opens by saying it did not review. That answer arrives as a formal review, `state: COMMENTED`, with the correct commit and zero inline threads, so it satisfies every coverage check a clean pass does and renders a digest byte for byte identical to one. The `40` reasoning does not reach it, because that reasoning rests on a comment carrying no commit, and this carries the right one. A pull request of 301 changed files, one over the reviewer's limit of 300, read as `rounds=1 review_on_head=yes threads=0 unresolved=0 merge=CLEAN` and was one command from merging on a review that never ran. A refusal is therefore not coverage: `review_on_head` reports `NO`, the summary line carries a `refusal=YES` of its own, since `rounds=1 review_on_head=NO` is equally what a stale round looks like and the two want opposite responses, and the body prints whole because its wording is the only thing separating a file-count refusal, cleared by splitting the pull request, from a quota one, cleared by waiting. One body names no cause at all, "Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request", which is what the weekly rate limit posts, so `status` and `wait` read the job log of the reviewer's own failed Actions run on that commit: a logged rate limit reports as `refusal=QUOTA` with the reset time it states, and anything else as `refusal=ERROR`, a possible quota hit. `wait` sends no request while the pull request's newest Copilot review is a quota or error refusal, on this head or an earlier one, since a request into a reached limit spends what it cannot recover, and exits `46` unless a request already pending after a refusal on an earlier head lands. Where nothing covers the head, the digest's `refusal=` field reads that refusal from the earlier head too. Past the quota and error refusals, the script reads no cause, only that the round declined. The match is on the body's **opening line**, since a refusal is the whole body where a review that merely quotes the wording carries it below its own overview, and this script and this file are exactly that quotation. One line rather than two, because a review's first line is its heading and its second is the overview prose: reading two passed every case except the review describing this check, which reported itself as a refusal of itself. The cost is the other direction, that a refusal introduced by a heading would sit below the opening and be missed, and answering that shape means telling a refusal from an overview rather than reading one line further. It is an alternation over the runbook's phrasings for the same reason the suppressed heading is, and a case asserts the script's pattern is the one the runbook publishes. The `41` reading is **head-scoped**, unlike a suppressed finding, because a refusal is a statement about one commit that a push retires, and a genuine review of that same head outranks it only where it is the newer of the two or the round a `--min-rounds` baseline waited for, coverage that landed being coverage. The field is spent by that coverage as well as the exit code is, or the summary line reads `review_on_head=yes refusal=YES` and tells a reader to split a pull request the reviewer has just reviewed. The liveness query carries no bodies, so a refusal reads there as ordinary coverage. That is deliberate: it ends the wait, which is what a terminal outcome should do, and the full read every wait finishes with is what tells the two apart, so no exit code comes from the cheaper reading.
+`wait` exits `41` when the review carrying the head is a **refusal**, meaning its body opens by saying it did not review. That answer arrives as a formal review, `state: COMMENTED`, with the correct commit and zero inline threads, so it satisfies every coverage check a clean pass does and renders a digest byte for byte identical to one. The `40` reasoning does not reach it, because that reasoning rests on a comment carrying no commit, and this carries the right one. A pull request of 301 changed files, one over the reviewer's limit of 300, read as `rounds=1 review_on_head=yes threads=0 unresolved=0 merge=CLEAN` and was one command from merging on a review that never ran. A refusal is therefore not coverage: `review_on_head` reports `NO`, the summary line carries a `refusal=YES` of its own, since `rounds=1 review_on_head=NO` is equally what a stale round looks like and the two want opposite responses, and the body prints whole because its wording is the only thing separating a file-count refusal, cleared by splitting the pull request, from a quota one, cleared by waiting. One body names no cause at all, "Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request", which is what the weekly rate limit posts, so `status` and `wait` read the job log of the reviewer's own failed Actions run on that commit: a logged rate limit reports as `refusal=QUOTA` with the reset time it states, and anything else as `refusal=ERROR`, a possible quota hit. `wait` sends no request while the pull request's newest Copilot review is a quota or error refusal, on this head or an earlier one, since a request into a reached limit spends what it cannot recover, and exits `46` unless a request already pending after a refusal on an earlier head lands. Where nothing covers the head, the digest's `refusal=` field reads that refusal from the earlier head too. Past the quota and error refusals, the script reads no cause, only that the round declined. The match is on the body's **opening line**, since a refusal is the whole body where a review that merely quotes the wording carries it below its own overview, and this script and this file are exactly that quotation. One line rather than two, because a review's first line is its heading and its second is the overview prose: reading two passed every case except the review describing this check, which reported itself as a refusal of itself. The cost is the other direction, that a refusal introduced by a heading would sit below the opening and be missed, and answering that shape means telling a refusal from an overview rather than reading one line further. It is an alternation over the runbook's phrasings for the same reason the suppressed heading is, and a case asserts the script's pattern is the one the runbook publishes. The `41` reading is **head-scoped**, unlike a suppressed finding, because a refusal is a statement about one commit that a push retires, and a genuine review of that same head outranks it only where it is the newer of the two or the round a `--min-rounds` baseline waited for, coverage that landed being coverage. For a plain refusal the digest's `refusal=` field is spent by any genuine round on the head. The exit code follows the ordering above instead. A `--min-rounds` baseline falling between a genuine round and a newer refusal therefore exits `41` beside `refusal=no`. The liveness query carries no bodies, so a refusal reads there as ordinary coverage. That is deliberate: it ends the wait, which is what a terminal outcome should do, and the full read every wait finishes with is what tells the two apart, so no exit code comes from the cheaper reading.
 
 `status` and `wait` both exit `42` where the round covering the head read **fewer files than the pull request changed**, or where an earlier round read fewer and the round covering the head states no coverage of its own, and `43` where it states its coverage in a wording this script does not read. Coverage of the head was the only coverage anything checked, and coverage of the diff is a second reading stated in a line nothing parsed: a partial round carries the right `commit.oid`, raises no threads, and reports "generated no comments", so it is the clean pass byte for byte in everything read. Over 332 Copilot review bodies on this repository, five rounds across three pull requests reported reading fewer files than were changed and all three merged, one of them leaving a file of three unread across **both** its rounds. This is the third instance of the shape `refusal` and `suppressed` are the first two, and the only one nothing was reading.