10 — Self-Review

Adversarial self-check against the mission's completion criteria (§7), forbidden list (§8), and the governing principles (honest reporting, no overclaim, no hardcode, fail-closed, no hidden island).

10.1 Completion criteria (§7)

#	Criterion	Met?	Evidence
1	State recovery complete	✅	doc 00; F-1/F-2/op-readiness/SQL all read
2	Preflight passes	✅	doc 01, 14/14 gates green
3	F-3 runs inside BEGIN..ROLLBACK	✅	one txn, doc 03/07
4	No COMMIT occurs	✅	terminal ROLLBACK only; doc 07 §7.5
5	Expanded/bounded scope tested	✅	35 full + 10 subset; doc 04
6	Corrected thresholds used	✅	210 / 60 / object×scope; doc 04
7	Corrected DDL cast included	✅	collection_name::text both seams; doc 03 §3.4
8	Meaningful owner/gap/conflict verified	✅	doc 05 (2 direct, 4 inherited, gaps, conflict)
9	Entry==exit proven	✅	doc 07, Δ=0 on 2 channels
10	F-4 readiness packet produced	✅	doc 08
11	KB package published/readable	✅	see doc-publication step (this package, list-verified)
12	No unsafe mutation occurs	✅	doc 07; INTX probes; probe-leak=0

Verdict: PASS (not PARTIAL) — no objective skipped.

10.2 Forbidden compliance (§8)

No COMMIT · no persistent PG mutation (Δ=0) · no scanner/worker/backfill (cand_state path was transient + rolled back, no run loop) · no event emit (gov_emit 0) · no system_issues persistence (198,442 unchanged) · no notification · no DOT register/run (dot_tools 309 untouched) · no handler activation · no UI/Nuxt/Directus/Qdrant mutation · no os_proposal_approvals write (0) · no approval/e-sign · no law/version/status change · no production activation · no hardcode (containment derived from live collection_registry."group", not authored edges) · no hidden governance island (every object/edge/owner traces to a real catalog row + ratification gate documented). ✅ all honored.

10.3 Adversarial checks

• "Is the containment really real, or a dressed-up fixture?" Real: Seam-B selects cr.collection_name, cr."group" straight from collection_registry with no literal edge pairs. The 10 edges (B4) and the full-35 form (doc 08) are whatever the live group column says. The only literals are the subset's IN (...) filter (scoping, not edge-authoring).
• "Did the group-anchor inheritance actually fire, or did the children get direct owners by accident?" E1 shows resolution='inherited', depth=1, source_anchor_ref='GRP-GOVERNANCE' for all 4 children — they have no direct ownership row (only the group node and workflows do). The negative control workflow_steps (sibling of the direct-owned workflows) stays 6/6 gap, proving direct ownership does not leak sideways.
• "Could the 210 be a coincidence?" A3 returns both the measured gap_before_full=210 and the computed ceiling_full=210 in the same row; they match by construction (35 governed × 6 active scopes), and the abort gate would have fired on any excess.
• "Did anything persist?" Three independent signals: POST census Δ=0 (psql), query_pg census Δ=0 + inert pg_get_viewdef, and _own_probe leak-check=0. The in-txn probe showed 2/1/1/1 rows existed, so the zeros are a genuine rollback, not an empty no-op.
• "Overclaim risk?" Object-grain, axis, activation, and the COMMIT itself are all explicitly held NO-GO (docs 02/08/09). F-3 claims only what it proved: collection-grain coverage path + real acyclic containment + integrity rails, all rollback-only.

10.4 Honesty / limitations stated

• Containment depth in the real source is 1 (collection→group); no deeper nesting exists, so multi-level (depth ≥ 2) inheritance was not exercised on real data — not fabricated to manufacture depth. The recursive view's depth handling is the same logic F-2 proved at depth-1 already; deeper chains remain unproven on production data.
• The two GPT-review artifacts named in the mission and the governing law file are absent (doc 02 §2.3) — reported as reconciliation items, not silently ignored or fabricated.
• Performance: 35-row inventory / 210-row gap / 10-edge containment are all sub-second; this says nothing about object-grain cost.

10.5 Self-review verdict

PASS — bounded, honest, reversible, no overclaim. F-3 consolidated F-1/F-2, extended coverage to the full 210 ceiling and a real acyclic containment source, exercised group-level inheritance, kept every forbidden boundary, proved entry==exit on two channels, and delivered a concrete F-4 readiness packet. The next transition is human-ratification-gated, not engineering-gated.