dot-iu-cutter v0.5 — First Snapshot MARK Dry-run Output Review · CUT Readiness Assessment

question: Are the existing first dry-run outputs ready for a CUT command-review?
scope_of_this_doc: readiness judgement only — this does NOT authorize CUT or VERIFY

6. Issue scan

Category	Finding	Defect?
Parser / matcher	enacted_only purity 60/60 (V-6); 3-tier cascade applied correctly; Điều 44 tier_2 row-marker exclusion exact (V-7)	NO
Manifest schema	header counts (60/4/69) reconcile with candidate/excluded indices and coverage proof; well-formed	NO
Addresses	all ICX-CONST/<path>, unique, status never in address (V-11)	NO
Provenance	source_document_version_id icxconst-008a06… on 100% of candidates+excluded; snapshot sha/length bound in header (V-4)	NO
Coverage	reconstruction_ok=true; 229+10+69=308 exact; no gap/overlap (V-9/V-10/V-15)	NO
Determinism	re_run_equal=true; manifest_digest 9d908a62… stable (V-14)	NO
Production safety	db_write NONE, production_touched false, git tree clean post-run (V-16/V-17/V-19)	NO

No parser, matcher, manifest-schema, address, provenance, or coverage defect found. No reason that would require an entrypoint fix or a dry-run re-run.

7. Carry-forward notes (advisory inputs to the CUT command-review — NOT blockers)

N-1 full_manifest_transport:
  issue: only summary+digests of the 84,157 B manifest.json is in KB
  impact: CUT command-review needs the full per-unit manifest body
  resolution_in_next_phase: deterministically regenerate full manifest into ephemeral scratch
    and verify sha256 == 7d56f3ce066950ccef3de4156c5afeea81b2450b8e38393205b52c1fca012179
    (and/or persist a content-addressed/base64 full-manifest blob) BEFORE designing the CUT row-set
  blocker_for_readiness_decision: NO (deterministic, byte-recoverable)

N-2 level_granularity_for_CUT (open design input):
  question: at CUT, do NGUYEN_TAC and KIEN_TRUC_SECTION become production IUs, or
            structural containers, with DIEU as the leaf IU?
  status: this is precisely a CUT-command-review design decision; the MARK manifest
          correctly emits all 3 levels — it is not a manifest defect
  blocker_for_readiness_decision: NO (it is an input the CUT review must rule on)

N-3 dieu_44_must_stay_excluded:
  Điều 44 (UOSL controlled_draft) is correctly excluded; the CUT command-review and
  CUT row-set must keep it excluded — no silent re-inclusion of controlled_draft/draft/obsolete

N-4 canonical_addresses:
  heterogeneous/non-contiguous DIEU keys are intentional and reconstruction-closed;
  CUT must treat manifest addresses as canonical (no renumber/normalise)

8. Blockers

blocking_issues: NONE

There are no blockers preventing a CUT command-review. The four notes above are advisory design/logistics inputs to be resolved within that separately-gated review, not preconditions that invalidate the existing dry-run.

9. Readiness recommendation

recommendation: A — READY_FOR_CUT_COMMAND_REVIEW
rationale:
  - existing first dry-run is PASS, exit 0, net-zero production, all P/V/QG green
  - manifest structure, scope (enacted_only + Điều 44 exclusion), coverage/reconstruction,
    determinism all verified correct from existing outputs
  - no parser/manifest/address/provenance/coverage defect; no entrypoint fix or re-run needed
  - the dry-run is the authoritative, deterministic, reproducible basis a CUT command-review needs
conditions_carried_into_next_phase (not blockers):
  - N-1 obtain & sha-verify the full manifest.json before designing the CUT row-set
  - N-2 CUT command-review must rule on NGUYEN_TAC/KIEN_TRUC_SECTION IU-vs-container granularity
  - N-3 keep Điều 44 (and all draft/obsolete) excluded
  - N-4 treat manifest canonical addresses as fixed
explicitly_not_authorized:
  - CUT, VERIFY, production IU creation, production DB write, schema/Directus/vector mutation,
    deploy/restart, merge/push/tag, self-advance
  - the CUT command-review itself is a SEPARATE GPT/User-gated phase; this assessment only
    states readiness and does not open or approve it