GPT Review — IU Test b–f Command Pack: Underload + Next Operations

Date: 2026-05-28 Reviewer: GPT Council via Web Connector fallback

Documents read directly

• knowledge/dev/reports/architecture/iu-test-b-to-f-readiness-command-pack-2026-05-28/00-command-pack-overview.md revision 1
• knowledge/dev/reports/architecture/iu-test-b-to-f-readiness-command-pack-2026-05-28/10-author-ready-next-macro-prompts.md revision 1

Verdict

COMMAND_PACK_USEFUL_BUT_UNDERLOADED_FOR_105000X_STANDARD

The command pack is useful and provides a workable sequence for tests b–f. However, the 11m50s runtime confirms that the prompt was still too small relative to the proven >105000x / 45–60m operating standard. It should not be treated as a fully exhaustive 105000x-class pack.

What is acceptable

1. The next macro sequence is reasonable:
   • b/c read-only harness first;
   • f SQL-link proof;
   • bounded gate protocol;
   • split/merge review decision wiring;
   • trigger-in/out event contract.
2. The split between read-only-first and gated-mutating tests is correct.
3. The gate protocol is correctly identified as the hinge for d/e.
4. The no-4-Mothers-before-IU-readiness rule is preserved.
5. The author-ready prompts are usable as seeds.

What is insufficient for 105000x-class quality

1. Runtime underload: 11m50s is far below the intended 45–60m deep macro target.
2. The package likely did not deeply inspect all 12 documents with enough independent verification.
3. The next prompts are too narrow; they propose implementation without requiring a deep preflight matrix across host/channel/repo/DB/gates/laws.
4. Prompt #1 says “SELECT + audit rows only,” which is internally inconsistent: audit rows are writes. It must be corrected to either pure read-only or explicitly authorized audit writes.
5. Prompt #1 allows creating SQL functions/catalog rows while calling itself read-only. That is not read-only. Needs split into DESIGN-ONLY spec or IMPLEMENTATION with full write-channel authority.
6. Prompt #2 says read-only proof, but allows adding catalog commands. Catalog rows are mutation. Needs split.
7. Prompt #3 gate protocol is dangerous if implemented too early; it must first be a design/preflight macro with no live gate function creation unless Hard Gate 0 passes.
8. Prompt #4/5 are implementation prompts but should not run before the Council approves the corrected gate protocol and read-only harness proof.
9. No explicit large-scale evidence requirement: command pack should require actual baseline query scripts, expected SQL snippets, result contracts, and sample JSON evidence shapes.
10. No explicit “stop if underloaded” reporting beyond a generic clause. Future prompts must require minimum evidence rows/tables/queries and multi-pass review.

Corrected operating decision

Do not immediately run the author-ready implementation prompts from document 10 as-is.

Instead, run a smaller but deeper Prompt Refinement / Preflight Split Macro to correct the next 5 macro prompts into safe execution classes:

• pure read-only proof;
• additive DDL/catalog implementation;
• gate protocol design-only;
• governed mutation implementation;
• event registration/delivery implementation.

Suggested next macro:

IU_TEST_B_F_EXECUTION_PROMPT_REFACTOR_AND_PREFLIGHT_PACK_105000X

Purpose:

• Fix read-only vs mutation contradictions.
• Add execution channel pack and hard gates to every implementation prompt.
• Split b/c into two phases if needed:
  1. pure read-only SQL proof / no DDL;
  2. optional DOT wrapper/catalog implementation.
• Split f into:
  1. pure validate/resolve proof;
  2. catalog/DOT command implementation;
  3. link enable/capture later.
• Keep d/e blocked until gate protocol and governance wiring are approved.
• Produce revised prompts that are truly safe to paste to Agent.

Recommended immediate path

1. Use the command pack as baseline, not final authority.
2. Refactor prompts before running implementation.
3. First actual execution should be:
   • b/c pure read-only proof with no function/catalog creation;
   • then f pure read-only SQL-link proof.
4. Only after read-only proofs pass should we add DOT wrappers/catalog rows.
5. Only after gate protocol is approved should d/e be attempted.

Key correction for GPT/operator style

Future prompts must be larger not by adding many files only, but by increasing operational depth:

• force source verification;
• force live preflight;
• force execution channel classification;
• force read-only vs write separation;
• force law/gate matrix;
• force sample SQL/evidence contracts;
• force multi-pass self-review;
• force underload fail if runtime/evidence is too shallow.

Final recommendation

Next: create the refactored execution prompt pack before allowing any live implementation macro.