[Half-state patrol] check-half-states live sweep — generated view (please pin)

[os-warren]

os-half-state-sweep — machine-findable marker for this generated view.

Generated view — not a second tracker. Authority lives on each card and PR (one-board rule); this body is rewritten IN PLACE by the scheduled patrol workflow (.github/workflows/half-state-patrol.yml) on every run, and the edit history is the archive. Report-only: every row is patrol input, never a gate verdict, and this sweep never fixes a state. Each predicate and the protocol clause it enforces are documented in scripts/pm/check-half-states.mjs.

Swept 2026-09-06T13:47:04.222Z · run 34036842101 · commit 1ca95df16e74da0b4e7ff3a8f36315c3b1aea89f · trigger schedule

The timestamp above is the patrol's own heartbeat: a Swept line that stops advancing means the standing caller died, which is the failure this anchor was created to make visible. Read it before you read the rows.

⚠️ 1 UNJUDGED row(s) in this sweep — an input this patrol could NOT read, not a state it read and found clean. They are sorted above the ordinary rows so the body's size trim can never be what removes them (#4690, #11218), and they are the rows to judge BY HAND: nothing in a later sweep will resolve them on its own.

check-half-states: swept 421 open pm-/p0-labeled issue(s), 646 open issue(s) in the unscoped pass (H13–H15, H18), 28 open PR(s) (merge state read on 3 of 3 H16 candidate(s)) and 1252 recently-merged PR(s) in objectstack-ai/objectstack — 304 half-state(s) found. H8's merged window is a TIME cap of 8 day(s), read in 13 page(s) (horizon reached: a delivery inside the window was seen, not merely the first N rows). H22 read 618 recently-closed issue(s) for pm:* state residue, COUNTED into the census line above and filed as no row at all (ruled 2026-08-31, 批 #13; folded #14072) (older closed carriers are outside the window by design). H22's closed-card window is a TIME cap of 3 day(s), read in 7 page(s) (boundary reached: paging ran past the horizon, not merely the first N rows). It is a CLOSURE horizon: rows are selected on closed_at, while paging is bounded by updated_at — the stream is consumed by closed-issue ACTIVITY (~188.3/day, measured 2026-08-31), not by closures (~11/day), which is why the page cap it replaced covered a ragged 2.1 days of update-recency rather than the closure window it read as. H23 read 576 squash commit message(s) from the default branch, carrying 18 closing-keyword binding(s) across 17 message(s). H23's commit window is a TIME cap of 3 day(s), read in 6 page(s) (boundary reached: paging ran past the horizon, not merely the first N rows). The open listings (H1–H18 inventory, H13 unscoped pass, open PRs) is an EXHAUSTIVE listing, read in 18 page(s) (complete: paging reached the end of the stream, so this IS the whole population). Hold comments read on 110 of 110 H17 candidate(s). Blocked-by: comment fallback read on 98 of 98 candidate(s). Restart-when: hold comments read on 62 of 62 H9 candidate(s). Blocker liveness (H19): targets resolved on 72 of 73 distinct Blocked-by: target(s) named by open pm:blocked card(s) — the 1 unresolved target(s) are named on their own cards' rows, and those rows sort ABOVE the size trim so they cannot be what a truncated body drops (#11218: this clause used to be an unconditional promise, and on the 2026-08-25T02:08Z sweep it was false — 199 rows were trimmed and not one rendered row carried an unresolved target). Cross-repo reachability was measured directly on 1 sibling repo(s), of which 1 do(es) not answer this credential — those targets are unjudgeable by ruling (each install reads its own repo with its own repo-scoped token) and ⛔ no re-run resolves them. Dispatch liveness (H20 + H27): remote branch read on 19 of 19 distinct claimed branch(es) named by open pm:dispatched card(s) past the 60-minute threshold — one read serving both rows, so H27's 24h population is a subset of this one and costs no request of its own. Seat liveness (H32): marker thread read on 6 of 6 HELD seat post(s) whose lane is countable on THIS board — a seat held for a sibling repo's lane is out of scope here (its inventory is unreadable from this sweep, so an empty-looking queue would mean nothing), and an unread thread makes H32 decline to judge that seat rather than accuse it. Gate-removal patrol (H35): 0 removal(s) of a gate-semantic label read from 0 page(s) of the repo-wide issue-event stream over the last 12h — no per-card timeline fetch. 0 of them are UNJUDGEABLE (a gate that only ever had ONE carrier leaves 「双载体同笔清标」 no evidence in either direction, so neither H31 nor H35 can say cleared-or-stripped). Shared-file holds (H36): changed-file page read on 27 of 27 open PR(s) — a pair needs both sides read, so a shortfall can only MISS a hold, never invent one. Governed review requests (H43): 9 of the open PR(s) whose changed-file page was read hit the governed register, and the submitted-review leg answered on 9 of 9 that the request/assignment union already left short (oldest-first, 25 per run). An unread review leg leaves its row standing on the two cheap fields and the row says so; a PR whose file page went unread is not judged by this item at all. Family folds (H37): 4 live shared branch(es) claimed by more than their own chain head, and a member comment page read on 122 of 122 open pm:queue card(s) — that second read is bought ONLY when a fold is live, so 0 of 0 is a board with no fold in flight rather than a pass that skipped one, and an unread member can only MISS a drifted write, never invent one. Dangling references (H40): 372 of 400 attempted resolution(s) answered, over 6130 distinct # reference(s) read off the LIVE board — 675 open card(s)/PR(s) and 389 already-cached comment thread(s), so comment coverage is the gated subset rather than the whole board, and merged/closed archive is out of the corpus by design. 1573 number(s) were answered free from listings already in hand, and 4157 were NOT ATTEMPTED at the 400-resolution budget (newest-first; this pass reached down to #13083) — not attempted is not clean. 28 do(es) not resolve and 0 could not be judged — ⛔ only HTTP 404 is read as unresolvable, a CLOSED card resolves normally and is never a finding, and no cause is asserted for any of them. Suppressed content is invisible, so every count here is a LOWER BOUND. Untimestamped readings (H44): 2042 comment(s) across 386 thread(s) ALREADY in hand were read for the five artefact shapes, and the seat leg widened the fetch to 10 of 10 HELD seat post(s) — every held seat, whatever its lane spelling, which is wider than H32's own population and deliberately so. ⛔ A verdict posted on a PULL REQUEST is NOT in this corpus: no listing here fetches a PR comment page, so this row's silence about PRs is an unread surface and never a clean one, and every count above is a LOWER BOUND. Claim-less implementations (H46): 21 of 21 bound card thread(s) were read for a Claim: naming the PR's head branch. A bound number this sweep cannot see as an OPEN card — closed, a PR, or beyond the listing ceiling — is UNJUDGED rather than clean, so this count is a LOWER BOUND. Epic parent reads (H45): 9 of 9 open pm:epic card(s) had their sub-issues parent read answered — a 404 No parent issue found IS an answer here, because parentless is what it means. That index is enumerated as its own population and kept OUT of the label pages every other row is judged over (SEEN_LABEL_PAGES), so this row buys one page plus one read per carrier and moves no other row's input. A carrier whose parent read did not answer is UNJUDGED rather than clean. Release records (H47): 76 of 208 card(s) this row can speak about had a comment thread ALREADY in hand to judge. It fetches NOTHING of its own, so a card whose thread no other row bought is UNJUDGED rather than clean, and the no-assignee pm:queue leg is the thinnest half of that corpus — H2 buys a thread only for an ASSIGNED card. A card that was never claimed is clean and indistinguishable from an exit nobody recorded, so this count is a LOWER BOUND. Maintainer briefs (H48): 9 of 9 governed open PRs judged, one issue-comment thread bought per governed open PR (at most 5 page(s) of 100). This is a NEW fetch class rather than a second reader of one already in hand: commentCache holds CARD threads only. A thread that failed or reached that ceiling is UNJUDGED rather than short, a PR whose changed-file page went unread is not in this population at all, and a governed PR with NO **ACCEPT** verdict is CLEAN rather than quiet. Partial landings (H49): 49 of 49 open pm:dispatched + assigned card(s) had a comment thread in hand to judge against the merged window. It fetches NOTHING of its own — H2 buys that thread for exactly this population, so a shortfall is a thread H2 could not read, and such a card is UNJUDGED rather than clean. The PR side is the H8 merged window plus the open listing, so a Refs landing older than the window is invisible here. Report-only: findings are patrol input, not a gate verdict.

Findings

• H19 #15214 — pm:blocked and 1 of 3 Blocked-by: target(s) could NOT be resolved this sweep (objectstack-ai/cloud#1979 (HTTP 404; objectstack-ai/cloud is NOT readable to this sweep's credential)) — so whether this block has outlived its blocker is UNJUDGED, not confirmed. Unread is not still-open (check:react-declaration-parity 是唯一没接进任何 workflow 的源码审计门禁,且无 MANIFEST 时静默 skip 退出 0 —— 它现在永远不可能红 #4690): a target dropped in silence reads as a healthy block forever, which is the exact failure this item exists to end, so it is named here instead. ⚠️ UNJUDGED is not a quiet row and must not be skimmed as one: this card's block is exactly as unverified as if nothing had been read at all. ⚠️ 1 of them are unjudgeable for a reason that has NOTHING to do with this card: the repo itself does not answer this sweep's credential (measured directly, by a separate GET /repos/<owner>/<name> — not inferred from the issue 404). That is the cross-repo class the contract-first split manufactures, and it is a standing, ACCEPTED limit rather than a defect to chase: each patrol install reads its own repo with its own repo-scoped token by ruling, so no re-run and no re-read of this card will ever resolve these. ⛔ Do not "fix" it on the card — judge the target BY HAND, or take a credential change to routing/security, whose call it is. The card's other 2 target(s) did resolve, and are still open. Report-only, and the release is NOT this script's to make: the state model gives it two mechanical double-checks (pm:blocked/pm:on-hold row, 「放行双查」) — ① release only against the condition carried by the MOST RECENT conversion comment, never an earlier blocker on the thread (a condition already spent, re-fired, reinstates an expired premise as the current one), and ② refuse to release when the card carries a MERGED PR newer than that conversion comment (the card moved on after the condition was written, so the cited fact can be true and no longer current). This row surfaces the candidate; the unlock sweep releases it — ⛔ never a label written from this script. When that release does happen it is the landed ACT — 「释放是显式动作:让卡离手者同笔清 assignee + Release: 行(会话/因/去向);下一任重新认领。」 — ONE write with TWO halves: it clears the assignee AND carries the Release: line (session, cause, destination). Dropping the field alone leaves no record of who let the card go, the half-state H47 reports. A card returned to pm:queue still carrying the assignee of the seat that parked it is dispatchable to the queue view and taken to the claim rule at the same time (H24), which is the state the unlock scan was measured leaving behind — ⚠️ agent identity only, a HUMAN assignment is ⛔ never cleared by an agent.
• H31 #14453 — needs:contract-review on the delivering open PR fix(showcase): grant the seven navigable objects and the three master-detail children #16069 (draft) while the CARD does NOT carry it — the more dangerous half of the same split: to the enqueue path an ungated card is a card that was never gated, so the review chain this PR is still waiting on is invisible to the queue, and the card can be enqueued straight past a gate that is demonstrably still live one carrier over. The gate is a DUAL carrier — 「两边都挂好」, hung in one stroke and cleared in one stroke, each carrier written read-modify-write with a READ-BACK (「闸门被剥不是红灯是放行」: a stripped gate is a GREEN light, and 「被剥」 and 「从未挂过」 are indistinguishable in the evidence, so the read-back is the only way either is ever noticed). Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — hanging or clearing a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行.
• H35 #14748 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open CARD by huangyiirene at 2026-09-06T06:55:31Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H31 #14846 — needs:contract-review on the delivering open PR test(plugin-auth): register sys_position / sys_user_position in the sso-register harness #16305 (draft) while the CARD does NOT carry it — the more dangerous half of the same split: to the enqueue path an ungated card is a card that was never gated, so the review chain this PR is still waiting on is invisible to the queue, and the card can be enqueued straight past a gate that is demonstrably still live one carrier over. The gate is a DUAL carrier — 「两边都挂好」, hung in one stroke and cleared in one stroke, each carrier written read-modify-write with a READ-BACK (「闸门被剥不是红灯是放行」: a stripped gate is a GREEN light, and 「被剥」 and 「从未挂过」 are indistinguishable in the evidence, so the read-back is the only way either is ever noticed). Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — hanging or clearing a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行.
• H31 #14955 — needs:contract-review on the delivering open PR fix(automation): publish $error on the throw arm before deciding whether the failure routes #16302 (draft) while the CARD does NOT carry it — the more dangerous half of the same split: to the enqueue path an ungated card is a card that was never gated, so the review chain this PR is still waiting on is invisible to the queue, and the card can be enqueued straight past a gate that is demonstrably still live one carrier over. The gate is a DUAL carrier — 「两边都挂好」, hung in one stroke and cleared in one stroke, each carrier written read-modify-write with a READ-BACK (「闸门被剥不是红灯是放行」: a stripped gate is a GREEN light, and 「被剥」 and 「从未挂过」 are indistinguishable in the evidence, so the read-back is the only way either is ever noticed). Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — hanging or clearing a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行.
• H35 #15542 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open CARD by huangyiirene at 2026-09-06T06:55:30Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #15993 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-zhuang at 2026-09-06T06:17:44Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #16069 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-warren at 2026-09-06T13:42:45Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #16069 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-zhuang at 2026-09-06T10:13:08Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #16069 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-zhuang at 2026-09-06T04:38:40Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #16148 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-zhuang at 2026-09-06T04:38:39Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #16267 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-zhuang at 2026-09-06T09:28:10Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #16302 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-warren at 2026-09-06T13:42:43Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #16305 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-warren at 2026-09-06T13:42:42Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H35 #16305 — needs:contract-review was removed from this open PULL REQUEST by os-warren at 2026-09-06T13:18:46Z and the gate is still absent — UNJUDGED, not clean. The hang it clears was ALSO a lone stroke: this gate only ever had ONE carrier, so 「双载体同笔清标」 leaves no structural evidence in either direction and no carrier comparison — H31's or this row's — can say whether it was cleared or stripped. The only remaining evidence is a review verdict written as free prose, which has no canonical machine-readable form (measured: a strict marker matched 5 of 35 removals, a loose one 10), so this row declines to parse it rather than widen into a check that cannot fail. Two producer-side repairs would each make this judgeable: hang the PR carrier as 「PR 一存在即挂」 already requires, or give the verdict a canonical marker. Report-only: ⛔ never a label written from this script — re-hanging a review gate from a sweeper would be issuing the verdict, which is 自查放行. Detection only; escalation and enforcement are a later card by the 2026-08-25 ruling.
• H38 #6021 — pm:seat post is STALE — its lane domain:services carries a Claim: on plugin-auth sso-register harness never registers sys_position / sys_user_position, so the platform-admin standing resolver logs 8 DATABASE_ERROR lines on every green run #14846 written 51.6h AFTER this post's last event (claim 2026-09-06T12:04:07.000Z, post 2026-09-04T08:27:23.000Z). A shift dispatched work and did not record it, so every number the post states — 在飞 / 队列 / 决策箱 / the round number — describes a round that has since moved on, while updated_at makes the post read as SETTLED rather than as stale. ⚠️ This is the measured shape: one seat ran ~31h to wave 4 and dispatched five cards under a title still claiming the previous round. ⛔ Not an accusation of carelessness — the same post already carried this exact lesson in its own ledger, written one shift earlier, and the next shift reproduced it; that is the evidence prose does not hold here, not evidence about any seat. Remedy: refresh the seat post (or post a round marker) so the successor reading it sees the round that is actually running. Report-only: ⛔ this row never writes a label, a title or a marker.
• H38 #6024 — pm:seat post is STALE — its lane domain:cli carries a Claim: on [finding] Both migration generators cap text fields at VARCHAR(255) while driver-sql creates an unbounded text column — a 300-char value the platform accepts is refused by every generated migration #16091 written 16.9h AFTER this post's last event (claim 2026-09-06T11:26:44.000Z, post 2026-09-05T18:30:25.000Z). A shift dispatched work and did not record it, so every number the post states — 在飞 / 队列 / 决策箱 / the round number — describes a round that has since moved on, while updated_at makes the post read as SETTLED rather than as stale. ⚠️ This is the measured shape: one seat ran ~31h to wave 4 and dispatched five cards under a title still claiming the previous round. ⛔ Not an accusation of carelessness — the same post already carried this exact lesson in its own ledger, written one shift earlier, and the next shift reproduced it; that is the evidence prose does not hold here, not evidence about any seat. Remedy: refresh the seat post (or post a round marker) so the successor reading it sees the round that is actually running. Report-only: ⛔ this row never writes a label, a title or a marker.
• H38 #6367 — pm:seat post is STALE — its lane domain:engine carries a Claim: on objectql: 11 error classes still spell their code as an inline literal, so a consumer cannot follow the by code, not instanceof convention the docs already teach #16159 written 49.3h AFTER this post's last event (claim 2026-09-06T13:27:42.000Z, post 2026-09-04T12:07:54.000Z). A shift dispatched work and did not record it, so every number the post states — 在飞 / 队列 / 决策箱 / the round number — describes a round that has since moved on, while updated_at makes the post read as SETTLED rather than as stale. ⚠️ This is the measured shape: one seat ran ~31h to wave 4 and dispatched five cards under a title still claiming the previous round. ⛔ Not an accusation of carelessness — the same post already carried this exact lesson in its own ledger, written one shift earlier, and the next shift reproduced it; that is the evidence prose does not hold here, not evidence about any seat. Remedy: refresh the seat post (or post a round marker) so the successor reading it sees the round that is actually running. Report-only: ⛔ this row never writes a label, a title or a marker.
• H19 #11331 — pm:blocked while 3 of 4 Blocked-by: target(s) — read from body OR comment — are CLOSED (#12400 (closed 2026-08-29T15:16:12Z), #12456 (closed 2026-08-26T03:58:22Z), #13464 (closed 2026-08-31T01:10:40Z)): the block has outlived its blocker. Nothing else here asks this question — H4 asks whether the line EXISTS, H14 asks the REVERSE index — so an expired block sits with a well-formed line, a correct label and no row anywhere: one measured card sat ~4.5h past its blocker's close and was found only by a human walking the graph, another was released only by a manual triage pass. 1 target(s) are still open (#13563), so this is a PARTIAL discharge and the card may still be legitimately blocked — the row reports it, it does not decide it. Report-only, and the release is NOT this script's to make: the state model gives it two mechanical double-checks (pm:blocked/pm:on-hold row, 「放行双查」) — ① release only against the condition carried by the MOST RECENT conversion comment, never an earlier blocker on the thread (a condition already spent, re-fired, reinstates an expired premise as the current one), and ② refuse to release when the card carries a MERGED PR newer than that conversion comment (the card moved on after the condition was written, so the cited fact can be true and no longer current). This row surfaces the candidate; the unlock sweep releases it — ⛔ never a label written from this script. When that release does happen it is the landed ACT — 「释放是显式动作:让卡离手者同笔清 assignee + Release: 行(会话/因/去向);下一任重新认领。」 — ONE write with TWO halves: it clears the assignee AND carries the Release: line (session, cause, destination). Dropping the field alone leaves no record of who let the card go, the half-state H47 reports. A card returned to pm:queue still carrying the assignee of the seat that parked it is dispatchable to the queue view and taken to the claim rule at the same time (H24), which is the state the unlock scan was measured leaving behind — ⚠️ agent identity only, a HUMAN assignment is ⛔ never cleared by an agent.
• H26 #11331 — pm:blocked on 1 target(s) that can never CLOSE: #13563 (needs-user-decision). The unlock predicate is "the Blocked-by: target closed", and pm:on-hold / needs-user-decision are by definition states a card sits in WHILE OPEN — so this block has NO MECHANISM THAT WILL EVER RELEASE IT. Every existing check passes on this card (the line is present, the target resolves, the target is open, the label is correct), which is why the measured instances were found by a human reading and by no gauge; H9 asks the mirror question about the HELD card and nothing asked about the WAITING one. ⚠️ Not a claim that the block is wrong — waiting on a deferred card is sometimes exactly right. It says the wait is indefinite BY CONSTRUCTION, so the release has to come from the target's own state changing (a ruling answered, a hold restarted) and someone has to want that.
• H19 #11333 — pm:blocked while 2 of 4 Blocked-by: target(s) — read from body OR comment — are CLOSED (#12400 (closed 2026-08-29T15:16:12Z), #12456 (closed 2026-08-26T03:58:22Z)): the block has outlived its blocker. Nothing else here asks this question — H4 asks whether the line EXISTS, H14 asks the REVERSE index — so an expired block sits with a well-formed line, a correct label and no row anywhere: one measured card sat ~4.5h past its blocker's close and was found only by a human walking the graph, another was released only by a manual triage pass. 2 target(s) are still open (#13457, #13458), so this is a PARTIAL discharge and the card may still be legitimately blocked — the row reports it, it does not decide it. Report-only, and the release is NOT this script's to make: the state model gives it two mechanical double-checks (pm:blocked/pm:on-hold row, 「放行双查」) — ① release only against the condition carried by the MOST RECENT conversion comment, never an earlier blocker on the thread (a condition already spent, re-fired, reinstates an expired premise as the current one), and ② refuse to release when the card carries a MERGED PR newer than that conversion comment (the card moved on after the condition was written, so the cited fact can be true and no longer current). This row surfaces the candidate; the unlock sweep releases it — ⛔ never a label written from this script. When that release does happen it is the landed ACT — 「释放是显式动作:让卡离手者同笔清 assignee + Release: 行(会话/因/去向);下一任重新认领。」 — ONE write with TWO halves: it clears the assignee AND carries the Release: line (session, cause, destination). Dropping the field alone leaves no record of who let the card go, the half-state H47 reports. A card returned to pm:queue still carrying the assignee of the seat that parked it is dispatchable to the queue view and taken to the claim rule at the same time (H24), which is the state the unlock scan was measured leaving behind — ⚠️ agent identity only, a HUMAN assignment is ⛔ never cleared by an agent.
• H26 #11333 — The wait is TRANSITIVE: #13457, #13458 are itself pm:blocked, so this card is waiting on a card that is waiting. A single-level predicate cannot see past one hop, and the measured chain was real one level up and FALSE two levels up (the target was an H19 finding on the same sweep — both of ITS blockers had closed). This row does not chase the chain; it says to look one level further.
• H26 #11753 — The wait is TRANSITIVE: objectstack-ai/objectui#7611 is itself pm:blocked, so this card is waiting on a card that is waiting. A single-level predicate cannot see past one hop, and the measured chain was real one level up and FALSE two levels up (the target was an H19 finding on the same sweep — both of ITS blockers had closed). This row does not chase the chain; it says to look one level further.
• H19 #11925 — pm:blocked while 2 of 4 Blocked-by: target(s) — read from body OR comment — are CLOSED (#12037 (closed 2026-08-26T01:52:11Z), #12038 (closed 2026-08-28T05:57:39Z)): the block has outlived its blocker. Nothing else here asks this question — H4 asks whether the line EXISTS, H14 asks the REVERSE index — so an expired block sits with a well-formed line, a correct label and no row anywhere: one measured card sat ~4.5h past its blocker's close and was found only by a human walking the graph, another was released only by a manual triage pass. 2 target(s) are still open (#12034, #12036), so this is a PARTIAL discharge and the card may still be legitimately blocked — the row reports it, it does not decide it. Report-only, and the release is NOT this script's to make: the state model gives it two mechanical double-checks (pm:blocked/pm:on-hold row, 「放行双查」) — ① release only against the condition carried by the MOST RECENT conversion comment, never an earlier blocker on the thread (a condition already spent, re-fired, reinstates an expired premise as the current one), and ② refuse to release when the card carries a MERGED PR newer than that conversion comment (the card moved on after the condition was written, so the cited fact can be true and no longer current). This row surfaces the candidate; the unlock sweep releases it — ⛔ never a label written from this script. When that release does happen it is the landed ACT — 「释放是显式动作:让卡离手者同笔清 assignee + Release: 行(会话/因/去向);下一任重新认领。」 — ONE write with TWO halves: it clears the assignee AND carries the Release: line (session, cause, destination). Dropping the field alone leaves no record of who let the card go, the half-state H47 reports. A card returned to pm:queue still carrying the assignee of the seat that parked it is dispatchable to the queue view and taken to the claim rule at the same time (H24), which is the state the unlock scan was measured leaving behind — ⚠️ agent identity only, a HUMAN assignment is ⛔ never cleared by an agent.
• H26 #11925 — pm:blocked on 1 target(s) that can never CLOSE: #12036 (needs-user-decision). The unlock predicate is "the Blocked-by: target closed", and pm:on-hold / needs-user-decision are by definition states a card sits in WHILE OPEN — so this block has NO MECHANISM THAT WILL EVER RELEASE IT. Every existing check passes on this card (the line is present, the target resolves, the target is open, the label is correct), which is why the measured instances were found by a human reading and by no gauge; H9 asks the mirror question about the HELD card and nothing asked about the WAITING one. ⚠️ Not a claim that the block is wrong — waiting on a deferred card is sometimes exactly right. It says the wait is indefinite BY CONSTRUCTION, so the release has to come from the target's own state changing (a ruling answered, a hold restarted) and someone has to want that.
• H26 #11975 — pm:blocked on 1 target(s) that can never CLOSE: #13515 (pm:on-hold). The unlock predicate is "the Blocked-by: target closed", and pm:on-hold / needs-user-decision are by definition states a card sits in WHILE OPEN — so this block has NO MECHANISM THAT WILL EVER RELEASE IT. Every existing check passes on this card (the line is present, the target resolves, the target is open, the label is correct), which is why the measured instances were found by a human reading and by no gauge; H9 asks the mirror question about the HELD card and nothing asked about the WAITING one. ⚠️ Not a claim that the block is wrong — waiting on a deferred card is sometimes exactly right. It says the wait is indefinite BY CONSTRUCTION, so the release has to come from the target's own state changing (a ruling answered, a hold restarted) and someone has to want that.
• H26 #11978 — The wait is TRANSITIVE: #11975 is itself pm:blocked, so this card is waiting on a card that is waiting. A single-level predicate cannot see past one hop, and the measured chain was real one level up and FALSE two levels up (the target was an H19 finding on the same sweep — both of ITS blockers had closed). This row does not chase the chain; it says to look one level further.
• H26 #11979 — The wait is TRANSITIVE: #11978 is itself pm:blocked, so this card is waiting on a card that is waiting. A single-level predicate cannot see past one hop, and the measured chain was real one level up and FALSE two levels up (the target was an H19 finding on the same sweep — both of ITS blockers had closed). This row does not chase the chain; it says to look one level further.
• H26 #13457 — The wait is TRANSITIVE: #14034 is itself pm:blocked, so this card is waiting on a card that is waiting. A single-level predicate cannot see past one hop, and the measured chain was real one level up and FALSE two levels up (the target was an H19 finding on the same sweep — both of ITS blockers had closed). This row does not chase the chain; it says to look one level further.
• H26 #13458 — The wait is TRANSITIVE: #13457 is itself pm:blocked, so this card is waiting on a card that is waiting. A single-level predicate cannot see past one hop, and the measured chain was real one level up and FALSE two levels up (the target was an H19 finding on the same sweep — both of ITS blockers had closed). This row does not chase the chain; it says to look one level further.
• H19 #13504 — pm:blocked while 1 of 1 Blocked-by: target(s) — read from body OR comment — is CLOSED (#14539 (closed 2026-09-05T01:55:25Z)): the block has outlived its blocker. Nothing else here asks this question — H4 asks whether the line EXISTS, H14 asks the REVERSE index — so an expired block sits with a well-formed line, a correct label and no row anywhere: one measured card sat ~4.5h past its blocker's close and was found only by a human walking the graph, another was released only by a manual triage pass. Every target it names is closed: nothing this card declared a wait on is still running. Report-only, and the release is NOT this script's to make: the state model gives it two mechanical double-checks (pm:blocked/pm:on-hold row, 「放行双查」) — ① release only against the condition carried by the MOST RECENT conversion comment, never an earlier blocker on the thread (a condition already spent, re-fired, reinstates an expired premise as the current one), and ② refuse to release when the card carries a MERGED PR newer than that conversion comment (the card moved on after the condition was written, so the cited fact can be true and no longer current). This row surfaces the candidate; the unlock sweep releases it — ⛔ never a label written from this script. When that release does happen it is the landed ACT — 「释放是显式动作:让卡离手者同笔清 assignee + Release: 行(会话/因/去向);下一任重新认领。」 — ONE write with TWO halves: it clears the assignee AND carries the Release: line (session, cause, destination). Dropping the field alone leaves no record of who let the card go, the half-state H47 reports. A card returned to pm:queue still carrying the assignee of the seat that parked it is dispatchable to the queue view and taken to the claim rule at the same time (H24), which is the state the unlock scan was measured leaving behind — ⚠️ agent identity only, a HUMAN assignment is ⛔ never cleared by an agent.
• H19 #14034 — pm:blocked while 1 of 1 Blocked-by: target(s) — read from body OR comment — is CLOSED (#14865 (closed 2026-09-03T17:59:30Z)): the block has outlived its blocker. Nothing else here asks this question — H4 asks whether the line EXISTS, H14 asks the REVERSE index — so an expired block sits with a well-formed line, a correct label and no row anywhere: one measured card sat ~4.5h past its blocker's close and was found only by a human walking the graph, another was released only by a manual triage pass. Every target it names is closed: nothing this card declared a wait on is still running. Report-only, and the release is NOT this script's to make: the state model gives it two mechanical double-checks (pm:blocked/pm:on-hold row, 「放行双查」) — ① release only against the condition carried by the MOST RECENT conversion comment, never an earlier blocker on the thread (a condition already spent, re-fired, reinstates an expired premise as the current one), and ② refuse to release when the card carries a MERGED PR newer than that conversion comment (the card moved on after the condition was written, so the cited fact can be true and no longer current). This row surfaces the candidate; the unlock sweep releases it — ⛔ never a label written from this script. When that release does happen it is the landed ACT — 「释放是显式动作:让卡离手者同笔清 assignee + Release: 行(会话/因/去向);下一任重新认领。」 — ONE write with TWO halves: it clears the assignee AND carries the Release: line (session, cause, destination). Dropping the field alone leaves no record of who let the card go, the half-state H47 reports. A card returned to pm:queue still carrying the assignee of the seat that parked it is dispatchable to the queue view and taken to the claim rule at the same time (H24), which is the state the unlock scan was measured leaving behind — ⚠️ agent identity only, a HUMAN assignment is ⛔ never cleared by an agent.
• … 272 further row(s) omitted to fit GitHub's issue-body limit; the full list is in the workflow run log.

Family ledger — computed vs rendered, every row family (#13947)

What each row family COMPUTED this sweep, and how much of it reached the list above. rendered below computed means the body's size trim ate the difference; the full list is in the workflow run log. This table is RESERVED out of the render budget BEFORE the finding rows are laid out — the same reservation the H17 index, the H39 census and the H40 section hold — so the trim can never be what removes it. Rows above are ordered by the same band shown here (HALF_STATE_FAMILY_BAND), highest band first, so a row survives the trim on what it IS rather than on how many unrelated rows were laid out before it.

⚠️ 25 family(ies) had rows omitted by the body trim: H4 (0/8), H12 (0/2), H19 (6/30), H20 (0/4), H26 (9/26), H27 (0/1), H36 (0/5), H43 (0/8), H1 (0/2), H2 (0/13), H8 (0/15), H9 (0/17), +13 more in the table.

family	band	computed	rendered
H31	gate	3	3
H35	gate	11	11
H4	stall	8	0
H12	stall	2	0
H19	stall	30	6
H20	stall	4	0
H26	stall	26	9
H27	stall	1	0
H36	stall	5	0
H38	stall	3	3
H43	stall	8	0
H1	state	2	0
H2	state	13	0
H8	state	15	0
H9	state	17	0
H10	state	3	0
H13	state	3	0
H18	state	4	0
H23	state	2	0
H24	state	2	0
H30	state	10	0
H44	state	48	0
H46	state	8	0
H5	inventory	10	0
H6	inventory	10	0
H11	inventory	24	0
H14	inventory	31	0
H15	inventory	1	0

Computed 0 row(s) this sweep, and therefore absent from the table (15): H3, H7, H16, H21, H25, H28, H29, H32, H33, H34, H37, H45, H47, H48, H49. These families were EVALUATED and found nothing — they have no rows to omit. Every family that computed a row is IN the table with its count, whether or not the trim left any of that row family in the body above, so a family missing from the list of findings is never ambiguous between the two readings.

Dangling references (H40)

28 number(s) referred to by the live board do NOT resolve, and 0 could not be judged. ⛔ Report-only, and ⛔ no cause is asserted: a number can fail to resolve because it was deleted, transferred, or made unreachable, and this sweep cannot tell those apart — a reference that fails is a fact, everything after it is a question for a human. ⛔ Do not rewrite the referring text and do not close anything; if a number returns, the reference was always correct. 400 resolution(s) attempted of 6130 distinct # reference(s) read off 2734 live-board text(s) (675 open card(s)/PR(s) + 389 already-cached comment thread(s)); 1573 answered free from listings in hand, 4157 NOT ATTEMPTED at the 400-resolution budget (attempted down to #13083).

• A pnpm check: harvest of dispatch-gates.mjs output silently drops a third of the gate list #13462 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• fix(scripts): resolve bare-identifier callees by lexical scope in the durability swallow census — batch 4 of the #12981 worklist #13459 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• [finding] the durability swallow census still resolves a bare identifier to a same-named CLASS METHOD — 15 name-only resolutions on main, 0 members affected today #13456 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• [finding] The READ-side sibling of the #12981 swallow family: a swallowed read makes a sweep select zero rows and report success — cleanup-package-permissions.ts asserts "no ghost grants" from a read that never answered #13422 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #6021, #9857
• [Decision] Something un-parked BOTH of this lane's clause-② PRs within 80 seconds — drafts flipped ready and needs:contract-review stripped, with no review on either #13412 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #13417, #13597
• [finding] The clause-② label protocol says needs:contract-review attaches to the CARD, but contract-review seats scan PRs — 2 measured instances of a parked PR that was invisible instead #13410 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #13417
• feat(plugin-security): extend the packaged-permission-set lock to the restore leg of the write-through #13409 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #13417
• [finding] The os-dev brief's dependency-closure recipe uses a pnpm selector that reads PEER edges — so any optional-peer declaration can make it select a cyclic superset and fail #13402 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #6367, #9857
• [Decision] isMissingTableError is a cross-package contract whose home no plugin can reach — two plugin-auth audit writes stay silently dark because of it #13399 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #6021, #6367, #9857
• [Decision] plugin-sharing's refused-backfill report lands at warn where AGENTS.md puts it at error — and the card that was supposed to carry the level is CLOSED #13398 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #6021, #9857
• feat(service-automation): definition-level input-schema refusal is non-retryable (FLOW_INPUT_SCHEMA_INVALID) #13371 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #13417
• [finding] dispatch-gates --residue prints THREE fabricated leads for check:query-options-erasure — literals naming files that have never existed, unannotated because one live sibling keeps the family reachable #13312 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #13326
• docs(adr): correct ADR-0082 addendum 2 — cut-rc.yml runs the sdui:manifest ratchet and installs Playwright for it #13308 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #12708
• fix(build): give each exports condition its own types target in 27 dual-build packages #13299 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• [finding] The ablation restore leg is provable only by a WHOLE-TREE status — an agent that reasons about it without running the preflight has no rule telling it so #13293 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #13326
• fix(scripts): doc-authoring Rule 3 reaches a GENERATED guidance table #13283 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• [finding] H9 judges the PRESENCE of a Restart-when: line, never the REACHABILITY of the target it names — a hold pointing at an issue that cannot fire passes forever (refused twice over; maintainer call) #13278 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #13597
• [finding] the #5499 investment freeze was LIFTED on 2026-08-11 (both drivers) — the tree still asserts it as live, and in several places that assertion is the stated reason a divergence stays open #13277 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• [finding] Widening check:comment-mask-adoption to scripts/** costs 11 unmeasured rows and still misses every live scanner there #13274 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• fix(tooling): re-derive the #5499 denominator over the whole tree, retire the present-tense freeze claims, and name the un-fireable-latch class #13268 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #12708
• [finding] resolveExecCtx 的 .catch(() => undefined) 把执行上下文解析失败静默降级为「无上下文」— 该行为在包管理门上可达什么错误状态,未测 #13255 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• [finding] measure-stall-guard-headroom's --self-test is wired into no check:* family, so its 32 assertions never run in CI #13246 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• Widen codehelper to the object-literal stamp position — the blast radius is now measured, and 4 undischargeable unresolved findings are the blocker #13233 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• [finding] dispatch-gates' CONVENTION_GATES docblock states a measured hint set for check:where-matcher that PR #13231 makes false — and the sentence built on it ("all three score silent") #13232 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857, #13326
• [finding] The "one module-body constant" claim about check-dispatch-gates.mjs is stale in four places — the gate carries three, and its own header still says it derives "for nothing else" #13230 — HTTP 404, does not resolve; referred to by #9857
• … 3 further number(s) omitted at the H40_ROW_CAP render budget; the full list is in the workflow run log.

On-hold trigger-file index (H17)

Before dispatching, intersect your dispatch's file surface against this list and NAME any card it hits in the dispatch brief. These are the trigger files open holds declare — the opportunistic-restart mechanism (maintainer-accepted 2026-08-11) whose intersection was measured at 0-for-19 while it lived only as a remembered protocol step (#10034). Report-only: a card here is a hold in good standing, never a finding. Extraction is deterministic — every path shown is a tracked file; anything unverifiable was dropped rather than guessed, so this list under-reports and never invents. (read on 110 of 110 open pm:on-hold card(s); 8005 tracked file(s) in the oracle.)

• #2657 — packages/spec/src/automation/webhook.zod.ts, packages/spec/src/integration/connector.zod.ts, packages/spec/src/kernel/metadata-plugin.zod.ts, packages/spec/src/kernel/metadata-type-schemas.ts, packages/spec/src/security/sharing.zod.ts
• #6009 — packages/drivers/driver-sql/src/sql-driver.ts
• #6736 — packages/plugins/plugin-sharing/src/sharing-service.ts
• #7401 — packages/plugins/plugin-security/src/security-plugin.ts
• #7898 — packages/core/src/security/auth-gate.ts, packages/runtime/src/http-dispatcher.ts
• #8345 — packages/services/service-analytics/src/analytics-service.ts, packages/spec/src/data/currency-fraction-digits.ts, packages/spec/src/data/field.zod.ts
• #8346 — docs/PLATFORM_GAPS_FROM_TEMPLATES.md, packages/spec/src/ui/view.zod.ts
• #8347 — packages/client/src/realtime-api.ts, packages/runtime/src/http-dispatcher.ts
• #8740 — packages/drivers/driver-sql/src/sql-driver.ts
• #8897 — scripts/check-durability-degradation-log-level.mjs
• #8966 — content/docs/deployment/meta.json, content/docs/meta.json
• #9139 — packages/lint/src/data-model-rules.ts, packages/lint/src/validate-security-posture.test.ts
• #10315 — scripts/check-cross-package-test-inputs.mjs
• #10572 — examples/app-todo/package.json
• #10694 — scripts/check-cross-package-test-inputs.mjs
• #12132 — packages/drivers/driver-sql/src/schema-drift.ts, packages/drivers/driver-sql/src/sql-driver.ts
• #12148 — scripts/docs-audit/affected-docs.mjs, scripts/docs-audit/check-drift-comment.mjs
• #12337 — scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh
• #12576 — scripts/durability-read-invention.baseline.json
• #12789 — packages/objectql/src/registry.ts
• #12799 — scripts/check-type-check-coverage.mjs
• #13528 — packages/services/service-storage/src/metadata-store.ts, packages/services/service-storage/src/storage-routes.ts
• #13542 — packages/plugins/plugin-security/src/security-plugin.ts
• #14121 — packages/metadata/src/loaders/database-loader.ts
• #14169 — packages/drivers/driver-mongodb/src/mongodb-driver.ts
• #14290 — scripts/objectui-changeset-digest.mjs, scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs
• #14490 — .objectui-sha, scripts/sdui-manifest.record.json

Closed-card pm:* residue (H39 census, informational): pm:dispatched 2101, pm:queue 858, pm:blocking 40, pm:blocked 21, pm:on-hold 14, pm:awaiting-maintainer 1, oldest closed 2026-08-02; 555 carrying both pm:queue and pm:dispatched. H22's 3-day closure window, read separately, holds 7 of 618 closed card(s) still carrying residue (pm:dispatched 4, pm:queue 3). Archive, not state — no cleanup is owed and none is planned (ruled 2026-08-31, 批 #13); readers scope pm:* queries to open cards, and that reason reaches a residue two hours old exactly as it reaches one from August, which is why the window above is counted here rather than filed as rows (#14072).

rate premise OK — observed ~157.0/day against pinned MEASURED_MERGES_PER_DAY = 137.5/day, measured 2026-08-23 (15d ago) (factor 1.14, band 2x).