feat(pm): H51 + H53 — the two contract-review carrier states no sweep reads, and the FAIL end-state H51 applies - #17138

Fixes #16836
Fixes #16995

Two report-only patrol rows on the needs:contract-review gate, plus the one governed sentence that names the end-state the first of them tells a seat to apply. One file surface, two commits, one commit per card.

What each card asked for, and what landed

#16836 deliverable 1 — the FAIL end-state (governed). The PASS branch was precise (「PASS ⇒ 同席同笔剥双载体,清标同笔留 provenance 评论引该 PASS」); the FAIL branch said only 「转回相应工作态(重派/返工)」 into a state model with no rework state, so nothing said what the label set looks like after a FAIL. references/contract-review.md 载体纪律 now names it:

• FAIL 同 PASS 剥双载体:同笔留卡上交接评论(引复审、独立性对、欠改);卡态与 assignee 不动。

#16836 deliverable 2 — H51. An OPEN PR carrying needs:contract-review whose own thread already holds a contract-review verdict for the current head, older than 60 minutes. Verdict-agnostic on purpose: both branches owe a label stroke inside the window, and a row that parsed the verdict would be issuing one.

#16995 half (1) — H53. An open card carrying the gate with no Claim: comment and no open or merged PR delivering it: 「carrier without increment」. H31-style and report-only — it never removes a carrier. Half (2) is #17007 and is not addressed here.

The one place the card's premise did not survive contact — H51's anchor

The card states the review-comment title as one literal format and calls the anchor structural on that basis. Measured against the live board it is not one format. Six contract-review comments across the seven gated open PRs, same day, in four shapes:

A regex pinned to the card's literal would have been silent on two of the three dialects plus every adoption record, while reporting a clean board — a phantom check on more than half of its own population. So the row reads the two things all four shapes share and nothing else: a ## Contract review heading line (line-anchored with m, H48's MAINTAINER_BRIEF_MARKER register — body-anchoring would drop the adoption record, and 「逐字采纳」 is one of the two legal acts on a subagent verdict) and the head sha as a code span, tested as a case-insensitive prefix of the PR's head.sha. The looseness m admits — a comment merely quoting a heading — is answered by the second gate rather than by the regex: no head sha, no verdict on this head. Pinned as a case.

Live behaviour on the board at the time of writing, both directions firing:

H53 and the shape H31 deliberately declined

H31's header refuses 「gate label on a card with no PR carrier is premature」 because card-side-first is legal and expected (「报告先于 PR 到达则先挂卡侧」), and reporting it would flag the protocol's own prescribed sequence as a defect. The Claim: leg is what lets H53 read the half that premise excluded, and it is not decoration: a dev executing card-side-first has been dispatched, so its thread carries a claim. Claim present ⇒ silent. Claim absent and no PR ⇒ nobody is executing anything. With no PR there is no carrier pair at all, so H31 here is not clean but inapplicable — the row says so in its own sentence, and H31's live #10025 reading is pinned unchanged.

Bands, and why neither row is gate

Both are state. The gate band's own criterion is a gate whose absence reads as a green light, where 「被剥」 and 「从未挂过」 are indistinguishable — the reader H31/H35 are. Both new rows read the opposite direction: a carrier present and false. H51's nearest structural sibling is H48 (a verdict recorded, its second write missing, on an open PR, aged), which is state. H53 is ⛔ not stall either: whether a card-side carrier actually blocks dispatch is unmeasured — the filing thread says so and declines to grade on it — so the row does not claim the card is stopped.

Cost — measured, and the decision stated either way

PM mechanism assumption B asked whether the sweep already holds the threads. Measured in the script: it does not, for either row.

• H51 reuses prCommentCache — H48's, whose header reserved exactly this ("a future PR-comment reader finds a thread this row already bought here and pays nothing for it"). Governed and gated are independent properties, so the marginal cost is one issue-comment walk per gated open PR that H48 never visited: 7 gated of 16 open PRs, single-page walks. The head-identity leg costs nothing at all — head.sha and labels both ride the open-PR list row already in hand.
• H53 BUYS a complete card thread per gated open card, and that is a deliberate purchase. commentCache cannot serve it: H2 buys a thread only for an assigned card, and the measured population is unassigned by construction (a card nobody is executing has no assignee), so a cache-only reading would have reported the entire target shape UNJUDGED while looking perfectly healthy. Bounded by the gated population, not the open one: 9 gated of 599 open cards, single-page walks. Bought COMPLETE via H50's walk, because a full first page may hide the newest Claim: and reading "no claim" off a partial thread would invent the absence the row fires on.

Both coverage clauses render unconditionally and both keep UNJUDGED apart from clean.

Ablation — each new pin shown to fail

Self-restoring script, absolute paths, trap … EXIT INT TERM; every leg proves the mutation reached disk (target text count 1→0, injected text present, mutated blob hash ≠ the HEAD blob) and every restore leg is proven by git diff HEAD empty and the restored blob hash equal to HEAD's 74441227870ada406df6e207f81c1cf562dd1cd1.

⚠️ One honest weakness recorded rather than smoothed: leg 1's injected text (true,) occurs 80 times in the file, so its injection count is not a unique proof. The load-bearing half is — the target text went 1 → 0 and the blob hash moved.

Gates

Re-derived on this diff with no paths (node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --commands --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack) — identical set to the dispatch's lead, zero additions. All run, exit codes captured before any pipe:

✓ dispatch-gates --ran: 43 derived famil(ies) accounted for — 43 run, 0 NOT-MEASURED.
✓ check-half-states self-test: 2976 cases pass.        (2926 before H53's 50)
✓ check-skill-line-ratchet: contract-review.md is 60 lines (ceiling 60; headroom 0).
✓ check-skill-line-ratchet: lanes/director.md is 72 lines (ceiling 72; headroom 0).
✓ dispatch-gates self-test: 1586 cases pass.           (check:pm-dispatch-gates, detached + `tail --pid`)

pnpm --filter @objectstack/lint run check:doc-formula-expressions first exited 3 — PREREQUISITE NOT MET, which its own text calls "not a finding"; the two packages it needs were built under the shared verify lock (VERDICT command-exit 0) and it then exited 0. Repo-wide lint is a real reading rather than a declared narrowing: eslint . --no-inline-config --format json over its own population of 6,427 files, 0 messages, run at 375c7961.

Ceilings — paid by deletion, ⛔ no raise, ⛔ no re-wrap

contract-review.md stays 60/60 and lanes/director.md 72/72. The new sentence is paid by deleting the line it subsumes — contract-review.md:47 「审计 FAIL 按状态机 label-flip 交回派发席补丁轮。」, which said the same thing without an end-state. ⛔ No merged bullets, ⛔ no cross-file move declared, ⛔ no ceiling touched. Every touched line is ≤120 bytes (new line: 120 B).

On the director.md mirror — PM assumption C's explicit fork, answered with a measurement. The card asks for the sentence mirrored in lanes/director.md 职责一. A second full copy is what the ratchet's own cross-file-move rationale calls the defect ("a fact can be in the wrong FILE … read by that lane and missed by the other six"), and the director charter already points at this single source twice (:29 「归属与全链见 ../contract-review.md」, :71 「../contract-review.md 为准」). So :36 is rewritten in place — both halves of assumption C's disjunction at once, the in-place rewrite and the pointer:

-- 之二,大的错误 FAIL 或 REWORK ⇒ 改标签即交接:按状态机一笔 replace 转回相应工作态。
+- 之二,大的错误 FAIL 或 REWORK ⇒ 改标签即交接,端态按 `../contract-review.md` 载体纪律。

The 之二 enumeration and the ⛔ 空交接 line at :37 are untouched — the latter is where 「只贴复审评论不改标签 = 空交接」 already lives, alongside state-machine.md's 「交接即标签」, so this PR does not add a third copy of it.

Governed terminal

.claude/** in the diff ⇒ draft PR, maintainer merge; ⛔ never ready, enqueued, auto-merged or approved by a seat. Verbatim (exit 3):

governed-surface predicate: 2 of 3 path(s) hit the register (5 surfaces, repo-agnostic).
  ⛔  GOVERNED — a human merge is the review record for this PR (#9495 regime).
      No seat flips it ready, enqueues it, or arms auto-merge (AGENTS.md Prime Directive #14).
      One hit governs the whole PR — 「混合 diff 一条命中即整 PR 分叉」; proportion is not a question.
      .claude/** ×2 — the agent instruction tree (skills, agents, hooks, settings)
        - .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/contract-review.md
        - .claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/lanes/director.md
  paths not on the register: scripts/pm/check-half-states.mjs

skip-changeset measured, not assumed: 0 of the repo's package manifests carry a files[] entry that could ship .claude/** or scripts/pm/** (positive control — packages/spec files[] reads ["dist","json-schema","liveness",…]).

维护者速读(草稿)

改了什么 — 契约复核闸门 needs:contract-review 上加两条只报告、不写标签的巡检行,外加一句治理文本。① H51:PR 还挂着闸门,而它自己的评论线程里已经有一份针对当前 head 的复核结论,超过 60 分钟没有任何标签动作。② H53:卡上挂着闸门,却既没有 Claim: 认领评论、也没有任何 PR —— 「有载体、无增量」。③ contract-review.md 补上 FAIL 的终态一句(此前只有 PASS 分支写清楚了)。

为什么改 — 一个班次里十二个 PR 拿到了复核结论,2 到 5 小时无人响应,最后是维护者先发现的(「已审 9 个 objectstack PR,为什么还是挂着待契约复审的 label」)。席位的巡检读标签,不读 PR 散文,所以只写成评论的结论谁也到不了。另一侧:裁定落地的第二天早上,同一个分诊席又预挂了 13 个空载体 —— 靠一次总监召唤才发现。两种都是「标签在说谎」,而没有任何机器读得出来。

风险与代价(含回滚) — 风险低:两行都是 report-only,绝不摘任何载体(摘除是有据可查的人的动作)。代价是每轮巡检多买少量评论线程 —— 7 个挂标 PR(与 H48 共用缓存)加 9 张挂标卡,各一页。行数棘轮未抬,靠删掉被取代的那一行付账。回滚 = revert 两个 commit,巡检回到今天的状态,不影响任何已发布物。

席位意见 — (留空,待席位定稿)

你要做的 — 这是受管面(.claude/**),按规矩只能您本人合并;席位不会转 ready、不入队、不挂 auto-merge。合并前值得看一眼的只有一处:contract-review.md 新增的那句 FAIL 终态,和 director.md 由「转回相应工作态」改成指向该单源的那一行。

Acceptance notes

• ⚠️ 一条会随本卡关闭而消失的交接,请席位定夺是否另立卡。 pm-dispatch: a contract-review verdict without the label handoff is invisible to every seat — name the FAIL end-state in one sentence, and add H51 for "verdict posted on this head, carrier still on" #16836 上有一条总监席的留言(5585423511)要求在 contract-review.md 描述档位保险丝处加一句:构建档位取自 harness 的 model 盖章或认领的 Container & model: 行,而 commit 的 Co-Authored-By trailer 是会话署名常量、永远不是档位证据(总监席据该 trailer 扣过一个 PR(F7),后来撤回)。该留言自己写明「⛔ Not widening this card's two deliverables;if it does not fit … file it as its own docs-only card」,所以本 PR 没有把它做进来。查重已跑(REST domain:skills 开卡 16 张 + 本地 grep,控制词 contract-review 命中 6 张 ⇒ 读数有效):无既有卡覆盖它。本 PR 以 Fixes #16836 关卡,该留言的落脚点会随之关闭 —— 正是 H52 记录过的「问题活得比卡长」形状。承接者:skills 席(本 fold 的派发席),contract-review.md 降档保险丝段是落点。
• Noted, not filed: the contract-review comment title has no canonical form — four shapes on one day's board. Nothing is broken (H51 now reads all four, pinned as cases), and narrowing the write side would be a protocol change rather than a maintenance edit. 承接者: the skills lane's own charter review, alongside the marker constants this PR adds.
• ⛔ Not in this fold and untouched: H31, H35, the PASS branch, any new label or state, [finding] needs:contract-review was pre-hung at triage again within hours of ruling A landing — 13 carriers on cards with no claim and no PR, and no patrol row reads "carrier without increment" #16995 half (2) (that is pm-dispatch: a seated session keeps the charter it loaded — a governed merge to SKILL.md or the seat's lane file is invisible to it until re-seated #17007), and [finding] domain:cli's pm:queue reads as 8 dispatchable cards and is 1 — five of them need a RULING, and the vocabulary already has a state for that #16688 / skills(pm-dispatch): pm:awaiting-maintainer has a semantic contract and zero machine carrier — 49 of 55 cards in it are waiting for a JUDGEMENT, not for a hand, and nothing can tell the two apart #17017, which are serial behind this on the same file.
• PM assumption A held: H51 was pinned as reserved at check-half-states.mjs:21840 and that pin is evolved rather than deleted — it now reads HALF_STATE_FAMILY_BAND.H51 === 'state', doing the same job from the other side (the number is not free). H53 verified free by grep over scripts/, .claude/ and .github/.
• PM assumption D was falsified and reported rather than followed; see the anchor section. Assumptions A, C and E held. B was unmeasured by the PM and is now measured, with the cost decision stated in both directions.
• Branched off origin/main 0da638cd (the dispatch read f836fb20; main moved before the worktree was cut). None of the newer commits touch the three files.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01MoTv7pn338AZ71owsp19gQ

Generated by Claude Code