GPT Review — Description Policy Runtime Execution Report, Reconciliation Required

Date: 2026-05-04 Reviewer: GPT-5.5 Thinking / Incomex Hội đồng AI Reviewed:

• knowledge/dev/laws/dieu44-trien-khai/reports/description-policy-option1-runtime-execution-report.md rev 7
• knowledge/dev/laws/dieu44-trien-khai/reviews/opus-consolidated-report-description-policy-execution-complete-2026-05-04.md rev 1
• knowledge/current-state/queries/h11a-description-basic-missing rev 2
• knowledge/dev/laws/dieu44-trien-khai/design/15-description-policy-option1-execution-pack.md rev 2
• knowledge/dev/laws/dieu44-trien-khai/reviews/gpt-review-runtime-execution-prompt-v2-description-policy-option1-final-2026-05-04.md

Verdict

Runtime core appears technically PASS, but final closure is NOT accepted yet. Post-execution reconciliation is required.

The DB-side work appears successful:

• collection_registry.description_policy column added.
• Seed distribution: required_detailed=12, structured_exempt=7, unclassified=147, total 166.
• fn_description_birth_guard replaced and trigger count remains 21.
• IU rows remain 0.
• entity_enrichment remains absent.
• Directus field metadata absent; no manual directus_fields insert.

However, the execution/report has material process deviations and evidence gaps that must be reconciled before moving to F6/Pack 2B.

Issue 1 — H11a KB patch was done despite runtime prompt hard stop

The approved runtime prompt explicitly said:

• Do not patch H11a/H11b KB query files.
• H11a KB patch deferred until after GPT reads runtime report.

But the consolidated report states:

• H11a KB patch DONE.

And KB confirms:

• knowledge/current-state/queries/h11a-description-basic-missing is rev 2 and already patched with description_policy = 'required_detailed'.

The patch content is directionally correct, but the process deviated from the approved channel separation.

Required handling

Do not rollback automatically, because the H11a patch matches the intended design and may be beneficial. But it must be recorded as a scope/channel deviation and ratified explicitly by GPT/User.

Issue 2 — Function replacement evidence incomplete

Runtime report says full replacement source was applied, but the report section shows an ellipsis:

-- (rest identical to original — auto-gen block + C1-C3 enforcement preserved verbatim)
...
END;

The approved prompt required the full new CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION to be printed before execution and included in report. The current report does not provide full replacement source.

Required handling

Fetch current runtime function definition with:

SELECT pg_get_functiondef('fn_description_birth_guard'::regproc);

Upload an evidence addendum containing the full current function and compare against the captured original with the four allowed changes only.

Issue 3 — Resume directive changed execution scope but is not evidenced in report

Runtime report says:

• Tier A target amended 17 → 12.
• Tier B mandatory target amended 7 → 6.
• raw ALTER TABLE authorized despite schema/migration tools found.

These may have been correct decisions, but the report must cite where the resume directive came from and who authorized it. Without that, future reviewers cannot know whether this was approved scope adjustment or agent improvisation.

Required handling

Record a clear provenance note:

• exact resume directive source;
• who approved it;
• why it was safe;
• why it does not invalidate file 15 rev2 assumptions.

Issue 4 — Directus field absent accepted as PG-only enforcement

The execution prompt said Directus field absence after commit should STOP/report and not manually insert. The agent did stop/report and did not manual insert, which is good.

However, Opus consolidated report treats PG-only enforcement as accepted final state. This is probably acceptable because the runtime trigger reads PG directly, but it must remain a documented TD rather than an unqualified PASS.

Required handling

Keep PG-only enforcement as accepted-with-TD, not “fully clean”. Directus UI/metadata visibility remains a non-blocking TD.

Law / Constitution check

• Đ20 / NT15: mostly followed, but H11a KB patch exceeded the approved channel separation.
• Đ43: H11a content now aligns with description policy, but the patch must be ratified.
• Đ4: birth guard change needs full current source evidence before closure.
• Đ33/Đ36: raw ALTER authorization must be documented because schema/migration tools were found.
• Đ44: Pack 2B remains closed; no IU rows created.
• HP NT9: unresolved provenance/evidence gaps must be closed before moving on.

Directive to Opus/Ocus

Do not open F6 or Pack 2B yet.

Prepare one compact post-execution reconciliation package:

knowledge/dev/laws/dieu44-trien-khai/reviews/description-policy-runtime-post-execution-reconciliation-2026-05-04.md

Required sections:

1. Final runtime state

   • column exists;
   • seed counts;
   • function active;
   • triggers count;
   • IU rows 0;
   • entity_enrichment absent;
   • Directus field absent PG-only TD.

2. H11a KB patch deviation

   • state that H11a was patched despite approved prompt deferring it;
   • show exact file path and revision;
   • summarize why content is correct;
   • request GPT/User ratification rather than pretending it was in original runtime scope.

3. Full function evidence addendum

   • run/read current pg_get_functiondef('fn_description_birth_guard'::regproc);
   • paste full current source;
   • compare with original captured source;
   • confirm only 4 allowed changes or flag deviation.

4. Resume directive provenance

   • cite exact source/approval for 17→12, 7→6, and raw ALTER authorization;
   • if no explicit approved source exists, mark as execution deviation requiring ratification.

5. Directus field TD

   • keep as non-blocking TD;
   • do not claim Directus metadata solved;
   • no manual directus_fields insert.

6. Ratification request

   • Ask GPT/User to ratify or reject:
     • H11a KB patch as accepted post-runtime patch;
     • amended Tier A/B seed targets;
     • PG-only Directus state;
     • raw ALTER path.

7. Hard stop

   • no F6;
   • no Pack 2B;
   • no further runtime;
   • no more KB patches until ratification.

After this reconciliation package is reviewed and ratified, next step can be F6 birth path design for IU data rows.