Macro-5 Build Postflight Delete-Fast-Ready Proof — R2-B2 (2026-06-19)
Macro-5 Build Postflight Delete-Fast-Ready Proof — R2-B2 (2026-06-19)
Date: 2026-06-19 · Workstream: R2-B2-MACRO-5-STAGING-BUILD-AUTHORIZATION-PACKAGE-2026-06-19 (Deliverable 56 of 110) · Editorial revision: rev1
Class: build postflight delete-fast-ready proof · READ-ONLY · NON-ENACTING · NON-AUTHORIZING · NO write performed.
Metadata convention. Editorial revision (rev1) only. AgentData storage revision/
content_lengthauthoritative at read time.
0. Status and non-authorization
STATUS: PASS — engineering / design-only. The postflight proof that the staging surface can be deleted as one fast unit. Engineering PASS ≠ authority PASS. Default: HOLD.
1. Purpose
Define the after-build proof that delete-fast is ready (every artifact enumerable, no production member).
2. Sources / evidence read
Macro-4 delete-fast evidence requirements (D39, DFE-1…5); delete candidate (28); delete-fast verification master plan (59). Main process, no reader-agents.
3. Accepted baseline (carried)
One run = one delete unit; the unit holds no production rows; all artifacts enumerable by run id/namespace.
4. Evidence / analysis — delete-fast-ready obligation
| Proof | Postflight must show |
|---|---|
| DFE-1 pre-disposal inventory | candidate-row + candidate inspect_* + evidence counts + run checksum |
| DFE-3 totality | all candidates (incl. bad-input) enumerable for removal |
| DFE-4 unit = one run | the disposable unit is exactly one run id |
| no production member | the unit contains zero production birth_registry/KG/canonical rows |
5. Candidate / requirement / gate / result
A build passes PT-5 only if the surface is provably one enumerable delete unit with no production member. No surface exists (no build); obligation defined. A surface that cannot enumerate its artifacts is defective (residue risk, BAD-15).
6. Owner-gated future work
Running the delete-fast is part of a build; forbidden now.
7. What remains unresolved
No surface; no delete-fast proof exists.
8. Ready for GPT/Codex review
Yes — Codex should confirm the proof requires one enumerable unit with no production member.