10 — Self-Review

Completion criteria (mission §7)

#	criterion	status
1	State recovery complete	✅ doc 00
2	Production read-only safety proven	✅ entry==exit fingerprint, doc 01/10
3	Clone isolation proven	✅ doc 01
4	Coverage regression suite built or blocked w/ reason	✅ BUILT, 26/26, doc 02
5	Axis/topic readiness advanced or blocked w/ reason	✅ PROTOTYPE 7/7 + build-ready design, doc 03
6	Issue/event simulation advanced or blocked w/ reason	✅ SIM 9/9, doc 04
7	DOT/handler boundary advanced or blocked w/ reason	✅ REHEARSAL 3/3 + precise execution blocker, doc 05
8	UI/API read contract produced	✅ 8 endpoints, doc 06
9	Production rollout automation packet produced	✅ 4 gated SQL + gates/deltas/stops, doc 07
10	Clone lifecycle decision made	✅ RETAIN, doc 08
11	KB package published/readable	✅ see publication verification (doc 11 / final response)
12	No forbidden action occurred	✅ doc 09 §forbidden, doc 10 below

Result: PASS (all 12 met; mission threshold for PASS was ≥4 objectives + precise blockers — exceeded).

What I'm confident about

• Production untouched. Independent allowlist-locked channel; entry==exit on a deterministic fingerprint and every row count; system_issues even held stable at 200480 across the window. Zero write channel to production was ever opened.
• Residue-free clone work. Post-objectives clone state is byte-for-byte the prior committed baseline (own=30, gap=0, candidates 5/35, cursor 1, dot_tools 309, 0 axis tables). A/B/C/D rolled back; E read-only.
• Real execution, not assertions on paper. Every PASS in docs 02–06 came from SQL actually run against the clone and captured verbatim. The C and D failures I hit first (provenance NOT-NULL; birth-gate warning) were diagnosed and fixed, not papered over.

Honest limitations / caveats

• Fingerprint formula differs from the prior package's 6800392…. That value came from an ad-hoc formula never saved as an artifact, so I could not reproduce it exactly. I used my own deterministic formula captured identically at entry/exit; the entry==exit identity + all matching row counts are the real proof. (Documented openly in doc 00.)
• Referenced GPT-review file and law file are not on disk. Consistent with every prior package's "missing-on-disk, immaterial" note. Did not block; flagged.
• Axis substrate is a prototype, not a build. It proves the DDL + engine and reproduces 210 exactly, but the ownership-model axis extension it requires is a ratification-gated architectural change. I deliberately did not commit it even on the clone (would create a misleading island). This is a judgment call in favor of discipline over coverage.
• Clone cannot be read by query_pg. All clone verification is via the ssh psql channel; there is no independent second channel for the clone (by design — the allowlist protects production). Clone claims rest on a single channel, but that channel is the same one that committed the state.
• "Activation" tests are in-transaction only. C activated an event type and D registered a DOT, both rolled back. I did not leave any activated emit or registered DOT — production emit/DOT remain a deliberate, un-rehearsed-in-anger governed step.

Self-critique on process

• I caught a genuine bug in the first regression-suite design (savepoint rollback also discarding result rows) by reading the output (14 vs 26 rows) rather than trusting the green "SUITE PASS". The fix (inner-subtransaction + RAISE UNDO) is now a reusable idiom.
• I verified the actual rejection cause in C instead of accepting WHEN OTHERS — which turned a false "activation doesn't work" into a real finding (mandatory provenance is a third fail-closed layer).
• I did not over-reach: no production mutation was ever attempted; the one irreversible thing (the human gate) was left to humans, as the mission and all prior packages require.

Residual risk to flag for the human/next agent

• The production seed is gated and self-guarding, but it is still a first persistent production governance write. Recommend the human runs F_prod_00_preflight and reads its NOTICE before authorizing F_prod_01, even though F_prod_01 re-checks the same gates.
• Keep all governance event types active=false on production until emit + dispatcher are explicitly decided; the scanner needs none of it.