11 — Self-Review

Did the run do what it claimed? (evidence-first)

claim	evidence	honest?
Production untouched	entry & exit query_pg: db=directus, own0/gap210/ospa0/emit0/axis0/idle0 — identical; channel is read-only role in READ ONLY txn	yes
Substrate built on clone	psql output: 6 CREATE TABLE, 9 views, COMMIT; post-commit counts 6/210/0	yes
Zero drift	pre-commit DO-block asserted generalized gap == canonical; would have aborted otherwise	yes
Lifecycle proven	separate clean rollback-only pass showed 210→214, gap 0→4, revert to 210/0	yes
Fail-closed (C)	5 negatives returned SQLSTATE 23514/23503/23505; commit gate aborted the first run on a wrong expectation (not a real failure) and rolled back wholesale	yes
Idempotent scanner	pass1==pass2==34, scan_count→2	yes
Event boundary inert	event_outbox gov rows = 0 before and after; both insert attempts rejected by the live trigger	yes

Mistakes made and how they were caught

1. Objective B activation-measurement rows vanished — they were inserted inside the savepoint and correctly discarded by ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT. Caught by noticing seq 20–22 missing from results; re-ran the measurement as a clean rollback-only pass for durable evidence. (This actually proved savepoint isolation works.)
2. Three wrong expected counts (C check 8 = ok-cells; D checks 1/2/9 = totals) — each caused the commit gate to RAISE and roll the whole transaction back, persisting nothing. Fixed the expectation to match reality and re-ran. The gate behaving as a hard fail-closed is itself the desired property: a wrong assertion cannot commit.

No mistake resulted in a false PASS or a partial/dirty commit — every failure rolled back atomically.

Things I was careful to NOT overclaim

• Provenance enforcement. Prior memory said events fail-closed on mandatory canonical_address/actor_ref/source_system. I read the actual trigger: it enforces unknown/inactive/stream/lane only. Doc 06 states this precisely and does not claim a provenance guarantee the DB doesn't make.
• "Coverage closed." The clone's responsibility gap is 0 (production-equivalent); the topic gap is deliberately 2. I did not round that to "fully covered" — the residual is the point (it exercises detection).
• Clone ≠ production authorization. Stated explicitly in doc 10. Nothing here moves the ospa≥1 gate.

Gaps / limitations (precise)

• The promotion path (zone candidate→approved + entity_labels reconcile) is designed (hardening §5.5) but not yet rehearsed — deferred to the next macro. The official lane is therefore empty (0 approved).
• The containment axis is seeded but not coverage-activated (deterministic axes are validation-class; no ownership gap modeled here).
• The GPT review file named in the mission prompt is absent on disk — immaterial (the design it gated is present), but flagged.
• missing_assignment at 29 is info-severity and bounded, but in a large inventory this signal would need a policy (per-axis "must-classify" set) before it's actionable rather than noise.

Forbidden-compliance audit

Re-checked each forbidden item in the mission §5 against what ran: zero production writes; zero production axis/ownership/candidate/event/DOT/Directus/Qdrant/Nuxt/approval mutation; clone had no external dispatch, no app retargeting, no worker loop, no unbounded scan, no hardcode beyond labelled test seed, no hidden island (all TEST_CLONE, DROP-reversible), and no claim of production authorization. Compliant.

Confidence

High on the clone results (every number is live psql/query_pg output, every commit gated by an in-DB assertion). High on production safety (read-only-by-construction channel + entry==exit). Moderate on rollout-packet completeness — the DDL is clone-proven but has not been executed on production (correctly gated), so first production execution should re-run preflight and watch the zero-drift assertion live.