Codex Confirmation — RS-TKT-1-PATCH1B Dry-Run Readiness

Date: 2026-06-22
Review type: independent read-only confirmation
Runtime mutation: 0
Final verdict: NEED_RS_TKT_1_PATCH1C_DRYRUN_READINESS_UNRESOLVED
Key answer: PREFLIGHT_BLOCKER_REMAINS_BEFORE_DRYRUN

1. Final verdict

NEED_RS_TKT_1_PATCH1C_DRYRUN_READINESS_UNRESOLVED.

PATCH1B substantially closes the prior fixture/oracle defects, but it does not support the claim that only Codex confirmation and the Owner/GPT open command remain before Phase 2. Its own Phase-2 register still contains three unresolved items marked required_for = PHASE2: DR-12, DR-13, and DR-14. The zero-defect proof excludes these classified-but-unresolved decisions by definition, so dryrun_owner_decision_gaps = 0 is not a valid proof of immediate launch readiness.

A second contract ambiguity remains: the permission model says “write one KB report only” and names one Markdown report, while DR-5 and the inherited Phase-2 checklist/schema refer to result.json/result.md as output artifacts. The artifact cardinality and representation are not deterministic.

Therefore Codex does not confirm immediate Phase-2 dry-run opening.

2. Report path written

knowledge/current-state/reports/codex-confirmation-rs-tkt-1-patch1b-dryrun-readiness-2026-06-22.md

Collision preflight: exact-path count = 0; no suffix required.

3. Inventory verification

PATCH1B inventory under phase1-design/patch1b-dryrun-readiness/:

count = 10
returned_count = 10
each revision = 1
next_offset = null
truncated = false

All expected files 00–09 are present.

4. Files actually read

Full KB reads, not chat summaries:

Prior Codex blocker report: knowledge/current-state/reports/codex-review-rs-tkt-1-phase1-tkt-base-design-package-2026-06-22.md, revision 1, truncated false.
PATCH1B files 00–09, each revision 1, truncated false.
Supporting Phase-1 files 13, 20, and 21, each revision 1, truncated false.
OR: knowledge/dev/ssot/operating-rules.md v7.58.
Constitution: knowledge/dev/laws/constitution.md v4.6.3 BAN HÀNH.
Related law: knowledge/dev/laws/law-01-foundation-principles.md v3.3.
Related reading/authority map: knowledge/dev/laws-new/newlaws/LAW_READING_INDEX.md rev 2.
PATCH1/PATCH2 supporting sources were spot-checked where needed through the PATCH1B provenance and prior review lineage.

5. Codex blocker closure judgment

The prior blocker is closed for these specific defects:

incomplete fixture coverage: closed by the 46-row master catalog and 14-brick ledger;
mixed status/outcome: closed; expected_check_status is distinct from outcome;
non-canonical, missing, dual, or prose-only outcome codes: closed in the canonical schema/catalog;
prose-only self-validation: materially improved by enumerated ledgers and counts.

The “dry-run readiness ambiguity” is not closed, because the launch register contradicts its own “only two gates remain” statement.

6. Fixture/oracle judgment

PASS for the fixture/oracle contract:

expected_check_status ∈ {PASS, FAIL, HOLD, N/A};
SAFE_REJECT is an outcome, not a status;
one fixture has exactly one canonical_outcome_code;
no blank, dual, or prose-only canonical code was found;
one namespace/layer/brick per fixture;
authority_effect = NONE;
registration_effect = NONE.

7. Coverage judgment

PASS on the documented coverage ledger:

fixtures = 46;
POSITIVE = 15;
NEGATIVE = 25;
ADVERSARIAL = 6;
required bricks = 14/14;
every required brick has positive + negative coverage;
mandatory contract cells = 280/280;
LEGO boundary cells = 70/70.

These are design-ledger counts, not a runtime execution result.

8. Zero-defect count judgment

The file presents all 23 expected counts as zero. Twenty-two do not reveal a blocking contradiction in this review. Count 18 is not accepted as proof:

dryrun_owner_decision_gaps = 0 counts only Owner decisions left unclassified/undecidable.

That definition excludes DR-12, DR-13, and DR-14 even though they are unresolved and marked required_for = PHASE2. A classified unresolved prerequisite is still a prerequisite. The rollup therefore masks the exact readiness condition the macro asks Codex to confirm.

Independent semantic result:

dryrun_owner_decision_gaps = 0: not confirmed as a readiness measure;
dryrun_phase2_required_inputs_unresolved ≥ 3: DR-12, DR-13, DR-14, unless PATCH1C explicitly reclassifies them as not required before this dry-run.

9. Adversarial probe judgment

The documented fail-closed probes cover the requested unsafe-output vectors and report safe=NO count = 0. No runtime/authority escalation was found.

However, the readiness adversarial check is incomplete: PB-15a proves only that Phase 2 cannot open automatically. It does not test the contradiction between “only GATE-1/GATE-2 remain” and three additional unresolved required_for=PHASE2 rows. FIX-4 changes the count definition instead of resolving that contradiction.

Result: fail-closed behavior PASS; launch-readiness adversarial proof FAIL.

10. Dry-run launch readiness judgment

Specified correctly:

name: RS-TKT-2-DRYRUN-READ-REPORT-INSPECTOR;
mode: READ_REPORT_INSPECTOR_ONLY;
allowed source prefix: knowledge/dev/laws-new/tool-kiem-thu-lego/;
allowed output prefix: knowledge/current-state/reports/tool-kiem-thu-lego/phase2-dryrun/;
report pattern: rs-tkt-2-dryrun-read-report-inspector-YYYY-MM-DD.md;
read-only/no-SUT/no-PG/Directus/registry mutation/no-root boundaries;
stop states and advisory pass/fail/hold rules.

Not fully specified:

DR-12 implementation language/tooling remains OWNER_DECISION, required for Phase 2.
DR-13 implementation repo/path remains OWNER_DECISION, required for Phase 2.
DR-14 base-pack currency confirmation remains OWNER_DECISION, required for Phase 2.
Artifact contract conflicts between one Markdown KB report and result.json/result.md.

Judgment: DRYRUN_READINESS_UNRESOLVED.

11. Boundary judgment

PASS:

REGISTRATION_HOLD remains active;
REGISTRATION_CAN_PROCEED = NO;
authority_effect = NONE;
registration_effect = NONE;
no registration movement, production, runtime implementation, SUT execution, PG/Directus/registry mutation, NVSZ-root designation, semantic Text-as-Code PASS, IU traceability PASS, or release-bundle PASS is authorized.

This review itself performed KB reads and wrote only this review report.

12. Anything else required before dry-run?

PREFLIGHT_BLOCKER_REMAINS_BEFORE_DRYRUN.

Yes. PATCH1C must reconcile the Phase-2 required-input register and the artifact contract before Codex can say NO_MORE_PREFLIGHT_REQUIRED_BEFORE_DRYRUN.

13. Remaining caveats

Correctly classified and non-blocking for this Phase-2 dry-run decision:

MCB-1: RS5B remains self-reported draft;
MCB-5: NVSZ root undesignated, blocks Phase 3 only;
MCB-6: no enacted laws-new architecture baseline; authority hierarchy remains explicit;
“0 runtime mutations” is a package attestation, not live PG/Directus proof.

14. Blockers

PATCH1B-DRYRUN-REQUIRED-INPUT-CONTRADICTION

Blocking files:

patch1b-dryrun-readiness/05-dryrun-launch-readiness-packet-2026-06-22.md, §§8, 9, 12;
patch1b-dryrun-readiness/06-adversarial-preflight-probe-results-2026-06-22.md, FIX-4;
patch1b-dryrun-readiness/07-machine-count-zero-defect-proof-2026-06-22.md, count 18;
corroborated by Phase-1 files 20 §1 and 21 §§1, 4, 5.

Why PATCH1B did not close it: §8/§12 says only GATE-1 and GATE-2 remain, but §9 still marks DR-12/13/14 as unresolved and required for Phase 2. FIX-4 merely narrows the metric to unclassified decisions, which makes the count zero without closing the prerequisites.

What Claude must patch: choose one coherent contract:

If DR-12/13/14 are needed before this dry-run, resolve them with explicit safe defaults/decisions and count them in readiness; or
If they belong inside a later construction step and are not prerequisites to opening/running this read-report inspector, change required_for and the Phase-2 checklist accordingly, with explicit rationale.

Then recompute the readiness counts without excluding classified-but-unresolved required inputs.

PATCH1B-DRYRUN-ARTIFACT-CARDINALITY-AMBIGUOUS

Blocking files:

PATCH1B 05 §§3, 6, 9 (DR-5);
Phase-1 13 §§1, 2, 5;
Phase-1 21 §1.

Why PATCH1B did not close it: it promises one KB Markdown report but also refers to result.json/result.md and an output folder for both.

What Claude must patch: define exactly one allowed artifact model: either one Markdown KB report containing JSON/MD-shaped sections, or separate JSON + Markdown artifacts with explicit count, filenames, and permission. It must match the “write one KB report only” boundary.

15. Exact next allowed step

Do not open or execute Phase 2 yet.

The next allowed step is:

RS-TKT-1-PATCH1C — reconcile Phase-2 required inputs and dry-run artifact cardinality, then request one fresh Codex confirmation.

This verdict does not authorize production, registration, runtime implementation, PG/Directus/registry mutation, or subject-under-test execution.

Process evidence — Steps 0→6 and two hats

Step 0 — Foundation

Three declarations:

Vĩnh viễn: readiness claims must be derived from one coherent prerequisite and artifact contract.
Nhầm được không: yes; excluding classified-but-unresolved prerequisites can produce a false zero, so contradiction checking is mandatory.
100% tự động: future readiness counters must count every unresolved row whose effective scope is the target phase, independent of classification label.

Applied principles: SSOT, evidence over prose, Assembly First, fail-closed, design before implementation, non-authority, no runtime mutation, explicit stop state, and report-to-KB.

Step 1 — Read

Direct AgentData search and full governed-document reads completed. No background agent or subagent used.

Step 2 — Design review

Hat 1 mapped prior blockers, fixture/oracle invariants, coverage, launch prerequisites, permissions, artifacts, authority boundaries, and acceptance conditions before judgment.

Step 3 — Review action

No code, DDL, DML, runtime, PG, Directus, registry, production, or SUT action. Only the additive KB review report is written.

Step 4 — Independent verification

Hat 2 cross-read PATCH1B 05/06/07 against Phase-1 13/20/21 instead of trusting PATCH1B 09’s self-verdict.

Step 5 — Production verification

Not applicable and prohibited by this mission. No production verification was run; claiming production PASS would be false. The only required verification is KB report persistence/readability.

Step 6 — Close/report

Verdict, evidence, exact blockers, patch requirements, next allowed step, and report verification are recorded here. Missing runtime evidence is explicitly not represented as PASS.