RS5B — Codex/GPT Review Packet (G2 Owner-of-record Execution/Authorization Design) — 2026-06-21

Review request. This packet asks a reviewer (GPT first, then Codex) to verify RS5B at the contract layer. RS5B is non-mutating design; do not infer any runtime authorization from its acceptance.

1. What RS5B claims

• Verdict: RS5B_READY_FOR_GPT_REVIEW.
• PASS level: design-review-ready / engineering-design only — not authority/implementation/runtime/registration PASS.
• Gate: REGISTRATION_HOLD retained; REGISTRATION_CAN_PROCEED = NO; 0 runtime mutations (only read-only query_pg + KB design-doc uploads).

2. Evidence the reviewer can re-check

claim	how to verify
controlling state re-derived LIVE this macro	re-run the [[01-source-register-and-current-state-reconstruction]] §2 queries (read-only): ownership=0; 6 scopes; register_dot absent; assign_governance_owner high/unimplemented; 0 effect/artifact columns; GOV-DOT/SIV/COUNCIL active
package additive, not overwriting	list_documents reports/rs5b/ returns the 9 files at rev 1; RS5A/PATCH1–4 unchanged
no runtime mutation	no DDL/DML issued; governance_object_ownership still 0; no new apr_action_types/scope/ownership rows
bootstrap grounded, not invented	[[02-g2-owner-of-record-bootstrap-problem-statement]] §4 cites Constitution v4.6.3 (Chairman promulgates; "AI proposes, does not self-promulgate") and Điều 32 §7 (unimplemented blocked at DB gate)
no fail-open	[[06-fail-closed-adversarial-self-check-and-bad-inputs]] BI01–BI10 each fail closed

3. Specific points to adversarially review

1. Verdict calibration. Is RS5B_READY_FOR_GPT_REVIEW correct rather than RS5B_HOLD_BOOTSTRAP_AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED? RS5B argues the HOLD applies only when bootstrap cannot be designed; here Model D is grounded in promulgated law, so the design exists while runtime resolution is deliberately deferred. Confirm or reject this distinction ([[07-rs5b-decision-packet]] §2).
2. Founding-authority grounding. Is the Constitution + Chairman a legitimate, non-circular source for the first owner, or is RS5B inventing authority? Check the NEEDS_SOURCE_CONFIRMATION honesty flag in [[02-g2-owner-of-record-bootstrap-problem-statement]] §4 (RS5B does not claim a concrete owner-minting mechanism already exists).
3. Non-mutation completeness. Are all writes truly [GATE] in [[04-preferred-non-mutating-execution-design-runbook]]? Any step that would mutate in RS5B itself ⇒ reject as RS5B_REJECT_RUNTIME_MUTATION.
4. No implicit inheritance. Confirm DOT_APPROVAL_QUORUM_AUTHORITY ↛ DOT_REGISTRATION_AUTHORITY and DOT_REGISTRATION_AUTHORITY ↛ DOT_ACTIVATION_AUTHORITY are explicit everywhere they matter (BI02/BI04).
5. PASS-level discipline. Confirm no engineering PASS is upgraded to authority PASS (BI08); confirm REGISTRATION_HOLD is nowhere weakened (BI10).
6. Adversarial coverage. Are BI01–BI10 sufficient, or is there an unprobed fail-open (e.g. a way the founding-act packet could be partially satisfied and still authorize a partial write)? RS5B asserts all 13 packet elements are conjunctive and item 13 is unconditional.

4. What acceptance does and does NOT authorize

• Does: confirm the design is fail-closed and review-ready; permit progression to Codex, then to designing a separately-authorized P2 execution lane.
• Does NOT: authorize any write; mint any Owner/scope/APR/register_dot; clear REGISTRATION_HOLD; implement assign_governance_owner; substitute for the Chairman's explicit authorization (packet item 13).

5. Carried blockers (unchanged)

G2–G7 + STATUS_DOMAIN_NOT_DB_ENFORCED + U3_PARTIAL_UNIQUE_SURFACE_ABSENT + OWNER_MINT_PATH_FAIL_CLOSED + QUORUM_EFFECT_BINDING_INSUFFICIENT + QUORUM_APPROVER_IDENTITY_UNVERIFIED + BOOTSTRAP_AUTHORITY_UNRESOLVED + CANONICAL_PRINCIPAL_SURFACE_REQUIRED_NOT_PRESENT. No new blocker, no new reject code.

6. Requested outcome

ACCEPT_RS5B (design-review-ready) or a specific HOLD/REJECT with the exact residual. On accept → Codex review → separately-authorized P2 lane under Chairman authority. Residual ⇒ RS5B-PATCH1.