Make Codex review dispositions deterministic

prompts/pr_review.md

@@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ You are reviewing a pull request for a **production quantitative trading and dat
 
 ## Review completeness
 
-- Assign **critical** or **high** only when the supplied PR context proves an exact changed path/line, a current caller or entry point proven by the supplied PR context whether pre-existing or introduced by this PR or an explicitly declared public untrusted boundary, reachability under current configuration and inputs, and concrete correctness, security, or data-integrity impact. State the reachability and impact in the description. If any element is missing, downgrade it to medium or low or omit it.
+- Assign **critical** or **high** only when the supplied PR context proves an exact changed RIGHT-side patch path/line, a current repository caller of the changed enclosing callable or an explicitly declared public untrusted boundary on that callable, reachability under current configuration and inputs, and concrete correctness, security, or data-integrity impact. Put the impact in `impact` and identify repository evidence with exact `kind`, `path`, `line`, and callable `symbol` fields. If any element is missing, downgrade it to medium or low or omit it.
+- Never provide `review_finding_id`, advisory provenance, or disposition authority. The trusted bridge computes identity and reads dispositions independently of model output.
 - Do not block on a hypothetical future consumer, forged internal object state, or generic defense-in-depth concern. Do not request a new parser, store, registry, or event-persistence layer unless the changed code already exposes that current boundary and the defect is reachable through it.
 - Review the entire diff holistically and report all independent actionable findings in one response. Do not stop after the first blocking issue.
 - Do not invent backward-compatibility requirements that are absent from the repository and PR contract. If both explicitly define a clean-slate namespace, check for accidental legacy fallback instead of requesting dual-read or migration. This never overrides security or data-integrity findings.
@@ -49,6 +50,13 @@ Return exactly one JSON object (do not wrap in markdown fences):
       "file": "path/to/file.py",
       "line": 42,
       "description": "What's wrong",
+      "impact": "Concrete reachable correctness, security, or data-integrity impact",
+      "evidence": {
+        "kind": "current_caller|public_untrusted_boundary",
+        "path": "path/to/caller.py",
+        "line": 84,
+        "symbol": "changed_callable"
+      },
       "suggestion": "How to fix it"
     }
   ]