22 — SB-1 / SB-2 Self-Review & Acceptance

Scope reviewed: docs 16 (SB-1 design), 17 (SB-2 design), 18 (live evidence), 19 (rehearsal), 20 (integration+readiness), 21 (next prompts). Mutation footprint: KB docs (16–22) + read-only PG only. Reviewed against mission §9, house-law §4A macro-quality detector, and the forbidden list.

---

1. Mission acceptance criteria (§9) — line by line

#	Criterion	Verdict	Evidence
1	State recovery complete	✔	docs 00/01/03/04/05/06 + canon 01/02/03 + house law read; summary in final report §State Recovery
2	SB-1 live gap verified	✔	doc 18 §1 (apr_action_types=6, 0 collisions, none governance)
3	SB-2 live gap verified	✔	doc 18 §2 (CHECK ∈{law,agency}; 8 agency→law edges; target table absent)
4	SB-1 design complete for review	✔	doc 16 (4 action-types, pattern, fail-closed, quorum, payloads, failure modes, tests, gate)
5	SB-2 design complete for review	✔	doc 17 (table+scope-ref+views, uniqueness/conflict/gap, inheritance, no-migration proof, axis)
6	Integration with approval/audit/event/issue/governance defined	✔	doc 20 §1 (12-surface matrix: D/A/Au/F/NI)
7	No local governance island introduced	✔	doc 20 §2 (dual-channel proof: PG + CI/source)
8	No hardcoded action/axis/object list introduced	✔	doc 16 §1/§10, doc 17 §6/§11 (rows/registries/risk_level; no enum, no code list)
9	Rehearsal safely completed or explicitly not needed	✔	doc 19 §0 (live-deferred w/ reason: read-only channel; OPERATOR_HANDOFF_MODE) + §1 live pre-flight green + §4 static proof
10	Implementation-readiness verdict clear	✔	doc 20 §3 (gate table + per-blocker verdict: design DONE, commit NO-GO)
11	All docs under the implementation-index package	✔	all written to …/one-roof-governance-technical-addendum-and-implementation-index-2026-06-01/16..22
12	No unsafe mutation occurred	✔	§3 below

Overall: PASS.

---

2. House-law §4A macro-quality detector

• no_GAP / no_break: ✔ — both blockers verified live and designed end-to-end; no dangling unresolved branch within scope.
• no_predictable_clarifying_questions: ✔ — defaults taken from concept canon/doc 03; council/human items correctly surfaced as gates, not asked as questions (they are genuinely not mine to decide).
• no_redundant_code: ✔ — reuse-first throughout (apr_action_types, Đ32 spine, registry_changelog, event_outbox); no duplicate vocabulary/store proposed.
• PASS_backed_by_evidence: ✔ — every claim ties to a live read-only query (doc 18) or a controlling doc.
• runtime / scope: design-only macro; all safe high-value design branches for SB-1+SB-2 completed (designs, evidence, rehearsal plan, integration, readiness, next prompts, self-review). Remaining work is gated on external authority (council/human), correctly stopped.
• misclassified_if checks: authority-vs-channel — correctly classified the apply items as AUTHOR_MODE / OPERATOR_HANDOFF (no execution channel for writes); dependency closure checked before declaring anything apply-ready (it is not).

---

3. Forbidden-compliance attestation (mission §10 + doc 00 §0.6)

Zero of the following occurred:

• ✔ No persistent PG mutation (only query_pg read-only + pg_constraint/pg_proc/pg_trigger reads; no DDL/DML; no COMMIT).
• ✔ No Directus mutation; no Qdrant/vector write; no Nuxt/UI/API/route change.
• ✔ No schema/table/view/function created; no DOT registered/implemented; no event/job/notification emitted.
• ✔ No law enactment; no version bump; no status change; no write to normative_registry/law_catalog/governance_docs.
• ✔ No approval row created; no self-approval; no apr_action_types/governance_object_ownership row created.
• ✔ No implementation disguised as design (the rehearsal scripts are explicitly author-mode, un-run; Phase-A register is explicitly NOT done).
• ✔ No stale-doc implementation (started from the index; Round 1/2/3 treated as superseded; live evidence reconciled against the canon).
• ✔ No hidden local governance island (doc 20 §2).
• ✔ No hardcode (doc 16 §10, doc 17 §11).

The only writes performed were KB docs 16–22 (the mission's sole apply channel), and read-only PG queries.

---

4. Honest weaknesses & limitations

1. No live rehearsal executed. The read-only channel forbids it; the scripts are author-mode and unverified against live triggers (fn_birth_registry_auto etc.). The operator must run §19 before any commit. (Mitigated by the live read-only pre-flight + static proof, but it is not the same as a green rolled-back run.)
2. Exception-store correction is a recommendation, not a ruling. Doc 16 §6 argues against admin_fallback_log as the canonical exception register and proposes a governed-exception register; council (C-2) must rule. If council insists on admin_fallback_log, the design degrades (lossy jsonb) — flagged.
3. Quorum is risk_level-keyed, not per-action-keyed. All four action-types default to risk='high'. If council wants finer routing (e.g. a low-impact display axis at medium), that is a C-2 sub-decision; the design supports it (risk_level is data) but does not pre-decide it.
4. Auto-approve bypass mitigation relies on a submission convention (action≠'add') until the T11 hardening of fn_auto_approve_add ships (P5). A convention is weaker than a constraint; the handler_ref='unimplemented' fail-closed is the independent backstop.
5. object_type vocabulary resolves against meta_catalog/coverage-profile catalog, but meta_catalog.entity_type is itself free-text (no CHECK). A tighter governed object-class registry would harden this; noted for the scanner/T6 tier.
6. Function bodies read up to 2,800 chars (fn_apr_quorum_check fit fully; the three gate functions were complete). No evidence was truncated for the gate functions, but other handler internals (e.g. fn_birth_registry_auto) were not deep-read — their side-effects are noted but not fully characterised; the operator rehearsal will surface them.
7. Counts are as-of 2026-06-01 read-only and fluctuate (e.g. registry_changelog grows); designs assert closure/additivity, not absolute counts.

None of these blocks the design verdict; all are correctly downstream of council/human gates or the operator rehearsal.

---

5. What this macro advanced (and did not)

• Advanced: SB-1 and SB-2 from scaffold (docs 05/06) to design-complete (docs 16/17), with live-verified evidence (doc 18), a rehearsal plan (doc 19), an integration+readiness verdict (doc 20), and next prompts (doc 21).
• Did NOT close: any blocker. SB-1/SB-2 substrate is not built; C-1/C-2/OP-B/C-4/C-5/C-6/H-1/H-2/L-1/L-2/L-3/SB-3/SB-4..9 remain OPEN (doc 20 §3.3). No blocker was silently closed.

---

6. Final acceptance

PASS (design-only). SB-1 and SB-2 are design-complete for implementation review; integration is coherent and island-free; rehearsal is safely deferred with a paste-ready plan; the implementation verdict is a clear, gated NO-GO-to-commit. All outputs are inside the implementation-index package; zero unsafe mutation occurred.