Odeya

Odeya is the architecture foundation for a private research engine that turns a thesis into a governed, replayable chain from question to evidence to warranted claim.

Current state — 2026-09-01: architecture foundation only. No executable research engine, autonomous-science capability, production deployment, or automatic publication is claimed. Gate A remains blocked; runtime stays prohibited until Gate A is accepted, any separately authorized Gate B probes are settled, and Gate C explicitly authorizes one bounded increment. The active release-surface successor is local and unsettled after permanent candidate d2704667 failed two attempt-1 hosted jobs and unpublished local successor 506a6444 was rejected by exact-object review before any remote ref was created.

The provisional web address is odeya.danielwahnich.dev. The apex domain, company, trademark, and scientific-publication decisions remain separate.

For reviewers: what is proven vs. planned

Much of this repository is written as an internal evidence trail. This table is the external entry point; the reviewer reading map gives the reading order, a glossary, and where each kind of evidence lives.

Category	What it contains	Where to verify
Retained byte-bound release-engineering evidence	Exact-commit fresh-clone rehearsals that rebuild their named subjects from clean clones; least-privilege CI workflows with full-SHA-pinned Actions; a hash- and integrity-locked toolchain; 7 bounded TLA+ models whose 30 intended counterexamples are retained in-tree; adversarial known-bad manifests beside every isolated suite. Resolve the current candidate and its own manifest before transferring any claim	scripts/ci/rehearse-fresh-clone.sh, .github/workflows/, tools/repository-release/, formal/tla/, tests/, repository release engineering
In progress: architecture evidence	A schema/fixture corpus with isolated contract suites, and a mutation audit that measures which refusal guards are proved to fire versus explicitly unproved — the split is retained honestly rather than rounded up. Counts drift as tranches land, so they are stated only in validator-bound surfaces, not in this summary row	Current status and blockers, the validator-bound checkpoint section below, architecture/ machine records
Not built, not claimed	No engine runtime, services, deployment, or production UI exists; Gate A (architecture acceptance) remains blocked; no scientific result, autonomous-science capability, or model-performance claim is made	The banner above, pre-implementation gate, current status

A green check anywhere in this repository is evidence about these bytes, never scientific truth.

The system in one view

Question → contract → evidence → separately assigned verification → bounded claim. Nothing jumps the chain.

flowchart TB
    subgraph L["CURRENT RELEASE LINEAGE · EXACT SUBJECTS · NO EVIDENCE TRANSFER"]
        direction LR
        M0["PUBLIC main<br/>1d5cfe8 · current baseline"]
        F1["FAILED 24ae6f6<br/>ambient Chrome major drift refused<br/>retained · never promote"]
        F2["FAILED a7d3869<br/>exact Chrome provisioned<br/>hosted sandbox unavailable<br/>retained · never promote"]
        F3["FAILED d2704667<br/>Foundation timeout + loader boundary<br/>attempt 1 retained · never promote"]
        C0["LOCAL RELEASE CORRECTION<br/>resolve exact HEAD from Git<br/>dirty bytes are not exact-subject evidence"]
        W0["FROZEN CLAIM SIBLING b992627<br/>separate lineage · do not merge<br/>rebuild only after release settlement"]
        M0 --> F1
        M0 --> F2
        M0 --> F3
        M0 --> C0
        M0 --> W0
    end

    subgraph E["RELEASE CORRECTION · NON-INTERCHANGEABLE EVIDENCE"]
        direction LR
        P0["ONE CLEAN LOCAL CHECKPOINT<br/>sole parent 1d5cfe8<br/>containing SHA resolved after commit"]
        S0["ci-static<br/>7-source policy + pinned mermaid.parse<br/>15 diagnostics · no browser"]
        R0["full-local fresh clone<br/>same static boundary + pinned browser<br/>7 SVGs + replayed receipt<br/>24 diagnostics"]
        H0{"FRESH EXACT-SHA<br/>OPERATOR AUTHORITY"}
        N0["RETAIN LOCALLY<br/>no public ref"]
        RF["PERMANENT release/SHA<br/>create once · never rewrite"]
        GH["HOSTED CHECKS<br/>ci-static + Foundation + schemas<br/>semantics + identity + formal + sequence"]
        MN["SAME-SHA main<br/>fast-forward only"]
        RR["REMOTE-MAIN FULL REPLAY<br/>compare invariant profile<br/>then final ref readback"]
        P0 --> S0 --> H0
        P0 --> R0 --> H0
        H0 -->|not granted| N0
        H0 -->|granted for this SHA| RF --> GH --> MN --> RR
    end
    C0 --> P0

    Q0["OPEN ARCHITECTURE DEPENDENCIES<br/>PRQ-002 + PRQ-009 + PRQ-013<br/>accountable reviews + exact-byte decision"]
    GA{"GATE A · BLOCKED<br/>architecture acceptance absent<br/>runtime and deployment unauthorized"}
    RR -.->|architecture publication is not Gate A| Q0 --> GA

    subgraph R["ODEYA · PRIVATE RESEARCH ENGINE · PROPOSED CONTROL ARCHITECTURE · NOT IMPLEMENTED"]
        direction LR
        C1["1 · CONTRACT + 2 · COMPILE<br/>canonical ResearchMissionSpec<br/>mission · protocol · falsifiers<br/>rights · resources · authority"]
        K1[("3 · ISOLATED EXECUTION + 4 · EVIDENCE<br/>immutable run manifest · claim provenance<br/>CANONICAL SCIENTIFIC STATE<br/>append-only event + evidence ledger · deterministic replay")]
        V1["5 · VERIFY + 6 · ADJUDICATE + 7 · LEARN<br/>Separately assigned verification role<br/>replication · falsifiers · replay · independence measured<br/>Grounded memory: failure · correction · unknowns<br/>never canonical authority"]
        B1["BOUNDED CLAIM<br/>supported · contradicted · null<br/>inconclusive · corrected · retracted"]
        C1 --> K1 --> V1 --> B1
    end
    GA -.->|only after acceptance and later bounded authorization| C1

    subgraph X["RELEASE PATH · adjudicated candidate only · PROPOSED · NOT IMPLEMENTED<br/>one governed external effect · separate from scientific truth"]
        direction LR
        RC["Release candidate"]
        HD{"Human release decision<br/>assurance wrapper required<br/>accountable authority"}
        MS["Exact manifest sealed<br/>from candidate + decision"]
        SG["Exact single-use grant"]
        FX["Bounded external effect"]
        OR["Separately authorized observation + reconciliation role<br/>independence measured<br/>applied · not applied · unknown"]
        NR["Retained · not released"]
        RC --> HD
        HD -->|authorized exact candidate| MS --> SG --> FX --> OR
        HD -->|denied or no valid decision| NR
    end

    R ~~~ X

    classDef public fill:#ECFDF5,stroke:#047857,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#064E3B
    classDef blocked fill:#9F1239,stroke:#881337,stroke-width:2px,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef current fill:#E0F2FE,stroke:#0369A1,stroke-width:2px,color:#0C4A6E
    classDef core fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0F172A,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#0F172A
    classDef state fill:#082F49,stroke:#0369A1,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef decision fill:#0F172A,stroke:#0F172A,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef release fill:#FFF7ED,stroke:#9A3412,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#7C2D12
    classDef quiet fill:#F1F5F9,stroke:#64748B,stroke-width:1px,color:#334155
    class M0 public
    class F1,F2,F3 blocked
    class C0,P0,S0,R0 current
    class W0,N0,Q0 quiet
    class H0 decision
    class RF,GH,MN,RR release
    class GA blocked
    class C1,V1,B1 core
    class K1 state
    class RC,MS,SG,FX,OR release
    class HD decision
    class NR quiet
    style L fill:#F8FAFC,stroke:#64748B,stroke-width:2px
    style E fill:#EFF6FF,stroke:#0369A1,stroke-width:2px
    style R fill:#F8FAFC,stroke:#0F172A,stroke-width:2px
    style X fill:#FFFBEB,stroke:#9A3412,stroke-width:2px

Loading

The upper band is the current operational story. Public main remains 1d5cfe8; 24ae6f6, a7d3869, and d2704667 are immutable failed siblings; the release correction and frozen b992627 claim tranche are separate children. A tracked file cannot contain the hash of the commit that contains it, so resolve the correction's exact HEAD, parent, tree, manifests, refs, and remote checks from Git and subject-bound receipts. No observation transfers across those subjects.

The middle band is a required sequence, not a report of completion. Static parser acceptance is not rendering; a rendered SVG is not semantic review; neither is publication authority. The lower bands keep scientific state and general external-effect release authority separate. Both remain proposed control architecture, not runtime screenshots. Models may propose, search, code, analyze, and criticize. They cannot grant themselves authority, grade their own claims, turn agreement into evidence, or treat a provider response as external truth.

Five operating laws

1. Contract before cognition. Scope, protocol, falsifiers, resources, rights, and authority are explicit before consequential work.
2. Evidence before narrative. Every claim traverses to exact inputs, artifacts, environments, costs, methods, and producing activity.
3. Verification is separately assigned. Producing and verifying a scientific claim require separate roles, contexts, and retained records; organizational independence must be evidenced, never inferred from isolation or agreement.
4. Nulls and failures are first-class results. Missing is never zero; blocked, invalid, contradicted, and inconclusive outcomes remain visible.
5. Every external effect is separately governed. Publication, repository writes, paid compute, messages, lab actions, and physical actions require exact scoped authority and independent settlement.

Proof layer

Odeya is being extracted from three active research tracks rather than invented from an abstract agent demo:

Mission	What it contributes
Sentinel	Measurement discipline, runtime monitoring, failure localization, and bounded transfer claims around autonomous-driving systems
Telos	External verification, deliberately broken positive controls, correction discipline, and tests of whether benchmark success survives contact with the intended outcome
Inbar	Physical causal evidence, prospective intervention tests, evidence admissibility, and separation of proposal, safety, execution, truth, outcome, and publication authority

They are requirements sources and bounded proof missions—not runtime dependencies and not proof that Odeya is already implemented. Their exact role and current limitations are retained in the proof-layer snapshot.

Architecture checkpoint

The current retained foundation contains 144 Draft 2020-12 schemas, 908 shared-manifest cases (244 valid and 664 known-bad), 17 isolated contract suites, 19 architecture-evidence checks, and 7 bounded TLA+ models with 30 mutation controls. These counts are bound to the validator run that measures them; the README previously stated four of them as fact while all four had drifted.

The integrated Foundation validator keeps a 30-second fail-fast default for ordinary child checks. The PRQ-002 predecessor wrapper receives 90 seconds; PRQ-002E, G, and H receive 60 seconds; and PRQ-002F and I receive 120 seconds. The repository-release checker separately receives 120 seconds after the same attempt-1 hosted subject measured approximately 45.216 seconds. Eight timeout-policy known-bads prove those narrow exceptions and their executable function bindings cannot be lowered, bypassed, rebound, decorated away, or widened into an unreviewed global relaxation. Both hosted Architecture evidence evaluator steps also remove the exact admitted shell, language, archive, and native-loader controls before installing or executing selected toolchains; a twenty-third workflow-policy known-bad removes the LD_LIBRARY_PATH isolation and must be refused. ADR 0115 records the failed candidate and the bounded successor decision. The Formal workflow separately fetches its pinned artifact before language setup, admits exactly one setup-Java and one setup-Python action in that order, keeps both Formal shell checks after setup-Python, and invokes a harness that refuses Java and native-loader preload variables. Sixteen semantic release-surface known-bads move or repeat fetch/execution, reverse or duplicate language setup, replace a verified artifact, add continue-on-error, reintroduce loader state, remove a loader boundary, or weaken the final Git-status check. They also inject a YAML-escaped loader variable before setup, skip the required job, or substitute a job container. Two runner-byte attacks execute Java before the guard or reconstruct loader state dynamically after it. Each must be refused by the dedicated Formal semantic boundary even when the generic governed-file hash closure is disabled.

Those results establish structural and bounded semantic evidence only, and their strength is measured by mutation rather than assumed. The lifecycle checker is audited explicitly: 222 of 229 refusal statements are proved reachable by disabling each in turn, and 108 of 111 removable guard conditions are proved load-bearing (ADR 0052–0054, 0065–0066, 0090). Its named residue is retained rather than converted into a flattering completeness claim.

The separately declared generalized-audit census excludes lifecycle and central architecture/release gates. Under the retained v0.2 method, a guard is proved only when a syntax-valid isolated mutation produces an exact suite-reported refusal—exit 1, non-empty output, and no traceback—the restored control passes, and an identical repeat produces the same framed SHA-256 fingerprint. In the current record, across 17 declared isolated checker subjects, 501 of 1260 refusal statements are proved to fire, with 759 retained explicitly as unproved and zero crash-only detections; unstable repeats are also unproved (ADR 0079–0085, 0098–0100, 0103–0104). The prq-002-identity-cohort subject contributes 0/127, product-identity-profile-candidate contributes 0/97 with all 97 open, and product-identity-profile-0.3-candidate contributes 24/72 with 48 open.

The immediately preceding unpublished 502/1260 record is superseded: a clean-clone run exposed a one-credit reproducibility mismatch, and a separate exact but unretained ablation showed the locally credited predecessor-profile row was false. The retained failure receipt proves only the failed stage, not the count or cause. The former 16-subject 477/1184 measurement and its 0/93 product-identity-profile-candidate row are likewise superseded because the registered subject census and checker bytes changed; they are not additional current denominators. The earlier 431/820 result is retracted: mutation of the self-bound assurance checker invalidated its outer evidence binding, so the audit credited that binding failure rather than the intended guard. The corrected harness refreshes the declared binding only inside each isolated mutation copy and proves its own unrefreshed/refreshed behavior before measuring.

Separately, the declared known-bad refusal corpora are checked by a census that fails closed on any unattributed case (ADR 0062), and each of the 158 predecessor cross-field schema rules with a case is proven to notice its own deletion by two-sided ablation (ADR 0071–0073). Coverage is still not correctness: a proved guard is exercised, not shown to enforce the right rule; the generalized harness does not prove exact case-to-guard causality; structural comparisons count as one condition regardless of field count; and ADR 0030's caution stands. Every coverage figure this repository previously published was wrong in the flattering direction until context-isolated adversarial review corrected it, and the corrections are retained.

ADR 0099 adds a bounded PRQ-002A structural probe without changing the 120-product-schema census: nine architecture-only schemas describe 21 non-issuable probe objects and 20 structured digests. Its isolated suite retains 47 cases—one safe and 46 known-bad—and two source- and language-separated result documents whose current recomputation path is provenance-attested. This is not independence, issuance, PRQ-002 closure, an EngineContractRoot, activation, runtime, or Gate A evidence; the probe identifiers cannot be promoted into product identities.

ADR 0100 adds a separate PRQ-002B successor candidate: four standalone product-member schemas, one ordered-map commitment schema, four pure-registry successor schemas, and three schemas for an explicitly scoped odeya-jcs-0.2 core/evidence/migration chain. The nine product-identity schemas have nine distinct domain contracts. Exact current bytes and the frozen 120-schema predecessor cohort reconcile to a disjoint 132-schema candidate union; the predecessor audit remains frozen at 120 schemas and 216 fixtures. The retained structural vectors are explicitly nonidentity fixtures. No product member, commitment, snapshot, canonical digest, profile member, root, or activation was constructed; both profiles remain unissued, PRQ-002 remains open, Gate A remains blocked, and runtime remains unauthorized.

ADR 0101 records the PRQ-002C interoperability blocker and one bounded observation of the proposed raw-token rule. Two source- and language-separated implementations agree on the complete staged projection for 61 opaque, answer-free synthetic integer-position frames: 9 are accepted and 52 are refused, and 44 suite-gate known-bads fire. The input, implementation, and execution artifacts are generation .0003; the corrected comparison is .0004 and the corrected expectation manifest is .0005. The execution receipts are fresh-challenge, self-attested byte-consistency records, not independently witnessed historical process captures. The stale implementation-causal-binding gate refuses an inconsistent relabel only; it does not prove refusal of a coherently relabelled copy or causal execution origin. The 44 gate attacks exercise exact JSON types and shapes, strict parsing, suite inventory, dependency and source-import boundaries, timestamps, comparison, scope, independence, attestation, and authority; they are not semantic-branch source ablations. This is evidence only for the fixed integer-type and integer-valued-const microframes. It does not establish generic schema-path evaluation, number-position semantics, unique instance-pointer retention, exclusion of dynamically discovered paths, nine-domain framing, ordered-map laws, cross-object replay, an offline registry, organizational independence, independent-host reproduction, or full successor-profile conformance. The frozen odeya-jcs-0.2 bytes remain unissued and blocked from conformance and issuance. The separate odeya-jcs-0.3 construction candidate described below does not amend or establish conformance for those bytes. No product identity, PRQ-002 closure, Gate A acceptance, runtime authority, or publication authority follows from this evidence. Architecture-repository publication remains separately governed by the exact-commit release contract; profile issuance and scientific-results publication remain unauthorized.

ADR 0102 adds a bounded, non-product PRQ-002D prehash replay before any structured or product identity exists. Two source- and language-separated implementations evaluate the complete ordered projection for 68 opaque virtual-file frames: one is accepted and 67 are refused under one fixed private oracle. The parent gate retains 77 known-bad mutations, each of which must produce its declared singleton guard, and binds the predecessor commit, tree, cited blobs, runner sources, locked dependencies, raw inputs, complete results, execution receipts, and comparison projection by exact bytes. Evidence authoring stages and validates the complete generated graph before replacing the comparison receipt last. The receipts remain self-attested byte-consistency records, not independently witnessed process evidence; the source controls are bounded inventories, not process sandboxes or general static analyses. The proposition does not establish canonicalization-profile conformance, complete offline resolution, dependency-closed product registries, organizational independence, product identity, admission, PRQ-002 closure, Gate A acceptance, runtime authority, or publication authority. The frozen odeya-jcs-0.2 bytes remain unissued.

ADR 0103 constructs the required side-by-side odeya-jcs-0.3 architecture candidate: twelve final-only successor schemas, nine structural-nonidentity fixtures, three ordered candidate records, and a separate seven-output observation transaction over the resulting fifteen immutable subjects. Two source- and language-separated observers agree on the complete exact-byte fifteen-row projection. That agreement is bounded construction evidence only. It does not prove the static schema-position inventory, complete per-subject raw-number applicability traces, canonicalization conformance, complete offline resolution, organizational independence, product identity, profile or resource issuance/admission, PRQ-002 closure, Gate A acceptance, runtime authority, or publication authority.

The PRQ-013 T0 byte-bound/recomputation tranche now retains candidate evidence under ADR 0095: five unissued successor schemas, seven schema-valid fixtures, 14 content-addressed synthetic backing preimages independently rederived from their retained bytes, 44 expectation-free vectors, and 49 downstream chain known-bads. Three source-separated, non-sharing evaluators produced 132 exact recomputations (44 each under Python 3.14.2, Node.js 24.18.0, and Temurin Java 21.0.9), and the comparison binds all six output fields: participant_id, domain_results, categorical_results, categorical_failures, final_disposition, and reason_codes. Any fixed times in this evidence are deterministic fixture times only. This is stronger bounded defect-detection evidence, not organizational independence: the implementations share the normative contracts and this work has not proved organizationally independent authorship or review.

The 0.1 resources remain immutable and unissued, and every successor is also unissued. The retained eleven-round, context-isolated technical-review report records no_grounded_refutation_observed_within_declared_attacks for the exact reissued scope only: round eleven reproduced the Gate and generator local Git readers, corrected PRQ-013 truth bindings, closure, install, cross-runtime, and full-integration controls. The reissued scope .0005 is rooted at sha256:97062b38a14d5bdccf5ad87c547c62388e7cd82256a445f631856aecee54e1d9; closure observation .0003, install observation .0004, 25 context-review known-bads including a live generator-path control, and two integration-truth controls survived only the declared round-eleven checks. The report is correlated, non-accountable model-worker evidence—not a ReviewDetermination, organizational independence, or Gate A acceptance—and all HDA-CTX-001 through HDA-CTX-016 findings remain pending accountable closure review. No real ceremony occurred, no current consumer is migrated, and no T1/T2, wrapper, end-to-end consumer refusal, accountable review, or operator Gate A decision is complete. Gate A remains blocked, with no runtime, cloud, or deployment authority.

The architecture is a modular scientific kernel with isolated cognitive workers around it:

• deterministic state, authority, budgets, lineage, and claim eligibility in the kernel;
• selective model and tool intelligence behind typed work contracts;
• content-addressed evidence and replayable event history;
• separately isolated verification and adversarial adjudication;
• explicit recovery, correction, publication, and external-effect protocols; and
• provider-neutral ports, with infrastructure kept outside scientific meaning.

Repository boundary

Odeya is independent from Aweb and Maestro in runtime, storage, namespace, control, scientific authority, and release authority. The intended boundary is a private engine, private evaluation suites, and private operating knowledge. Papers, datasets, benchmarks, and mission code may be released mission by mission only through explicit rights, safety, evidence, and publication gates.

This architecture repository is licensed under the Apache License 2.0; see CONTRIBUTING.md and SECURITY.md for how to engage with it. No domain purchase, company filing, outreach, or product deployment is implied, and runtime, release, and Gate A authority remain exclusively with the repository owner.

Read the architecture

• Charter
• System architecture
• Current status and blockers
• Pre-implementation gates
• Research protocol
• Mathematical constitution
• Physical-science constitution
• Security and authority
• Human decision assurance
• Canonical identity and serialization profile
• Module ownership and dependency manifest
• Architecture review protocol
• Repository release engineering
• Roadmap

Reproduce the checkpoint

The architecture validator runs without a development server:

python3 -m venv .venv-architecture
.venv-architecture/bin/python -m pip install \
  --require-hashes \
  --only-binary=:all: \
  --requirement tools/repository-release/requirements-architecture.lock
.venv-architecture/bin/python scripts/validate.py

Repository-release checks have two explicit, non-interchangeable profiles. The required hosted profile validates the repository contract and parses the exact seven governed Mermaid sources without launching a browser:

/bin/bash --noprofile --norc -p \
  scripts/ci/check-repository-release.sh ci-static

The full local profile is mandatory for exact-commit rehearsal. It repeats the static checks, provisions the pinned Chrome for Testing boundary, renders all seven sources, and retains every SVG plus a source/output review receipt:

/bin/bash --noprofile --norc -p \
  scripts/ci/check-repository-release.sh full-local

A static receipt cannot satisfy a full rehearsal or publication precondition. Neither profile reviews diagram meaning or grants publication, Gate A, or runtime authority.

After fetching the digest-verified JAR described in the formal-model guide, use its exact environment-isolated reproduction boundary:

/usr/bin/env -u JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS -u _JAVA_OPTIONS -u JDK_JAVA_OPTIONS \
  -u LD_PRELOAD -u LD_LIBRARY_PATH \
  -u DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES -u DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH \
  /bin/bash --noprofile --norc -p formal/tla/check.sh

Which refusal statements have a retained mutation proof is measured rather than assumed. The lifecycle checker has its own dedicated statement and condition audits. The generalized v0.2 audit covers a separate declared checker census; lifecycle is excluded while the PRQ-002E checker is included. It requires a syntax-valid mutation, an exact suite-reported refusal, a passing restored control, and an identical repeated refusal fingerprint. It does not attribute the result to an exact case ID:

python3 scripts/audit_lifecycle_guard_coverage.py       # lifecycle statements, ~90s
python3 scripts/audit_suite_guard_coverage.py           # declared non-lifecycle checker census; duration varies

See repository release engineering for the exact CI jobs, threat boundary, toolchain pins, and fresh-clone rehearsal. A green check is evidence about this repository snapshot; it is never scientific truth or Gate A acceptance.

Repository-governance bootstrap and the first exact-SHA activation were observed on 2026-07-19. Bootstrap candidate a25d026bd7233dfc452accc6087ded0bf015d7b4 remains at its permanent release ref. Distinct post-account-state candidate f1f25fd336daa1dd2707ba36b832e8d5c5e41d3e then passed all four workflows and ten jobs at its permanent release ref, was same-SHA promoted to main, passed four new post-main workflows and ten jobs, reproduced from remote main, compared equal by the admitted invariant profile, and settled the read-only activation receipt. GitHub read-back observed active no-bypass release and main rulesets (IDs 19178198 and 19178503), disabled pull requests, the inert rebase-only merge configuration, full-SHA Action admission, and read-only workflow tokens. The controls remain active but must be freshly read back for every publication; no descendant inherits f1f25fd's subject-bound checks, replay, comparison, or activation receipt. None grants Gate A or runtime authority.

Three direct-child release candidates of the current 1d5cfe8 baseline remain permanent negative evidence. 24ae6f6 refused when an ambient runner browser advanced from Chrome major 150 to 151. Its replacement sibling a7d3869 pinned exact Chrome for Testing 150.0.7871.24, but the required hosted job failed when the Ubuntu AppArmor boundary denied a usable browser sandbox. Neither candidate was rerun or promoted. ADR 0114 keeps exact rendering mandatory in full rehearsal while moving the required hosted check to acceptance by one exact pinned public Mermaid parser. That is a tool- and version-scoped observation, not a language-standard grammar proof. It forbids --no-sandbox or machine-wide security weakening as a way to make a check green. September candidate d2704667 then retained three successful attempt-1 workflow families, but Foundation under-budgeted a repository-release checker observed at approximately 45.216 seconds and Architecture evidence passed setup-Python's LD_LIBRARY_PATH into a correctly fail-closed Node installer. It was not rerun or promoted; public main remained unchanged. ADR 0115 binds the fresh sibling's 120-second path-specific checker budget, exact two-step cross-tool environment isolation, and new known-bad proofs.

On 2026-07-30, direct child 617209ba completed its own candidate and post-main four-workflow/ten-job censuses, remote-main replay, comparison, and final ref read-back. Its first PRQ-002E child f1bb98d then retained a permanent candidate ref, but its attempt-1 census stopped at nine of ten successful jobs. The Foundation job reported two internal child-process TimeoutExpired diagnostics; the workflow and job were not reported as GitHub timeouts. It was not promoted and has no successful candidate-checks or remote-main evidence. The corrected replacement sibling then completed the ordinary exact-SHA sequence in full: its own local rehearsal, candidate governance, four candidate workflows with ten attempt-1 jobs at its permanent release ref, same-SHA fast-forward promotion, four new attempt-1 post-main runs, remote-main replay and comparison, and a final live exact-ref read-back. That settlement belongs to that exact commit alone; no descendant inherits it.

Next

The sole current repository mission is the unpublished release-surface correction described in the current handoff and ADR 0114, as extended by ADR 0115. It must become one clean direct child of the exact public baseline, pass both release profiles plus Foundation, formal, full fresh-clone, manifest replay, and context-isolated review on that exact subject, and retain its local evidence. A permanent candidate ref still requires fresh operator authority naming the final SHA and one accountable publisher; publication then requires the complete candidate, promotion, remote-main replay, comparison, and final read-back sequence. Until those steps settle, the correction is local and unpublished.

The public baseline already retains the bounded PRQ-002F through PRQ-002I machine chain: raw-aware numeric traces and cross-object conformance over the fifteen frozen construction subjects, profile-bounded JCS serialization, nine-domain frame governance, and a declared 199-member universe with 6,456 offline schema-reference edges and 241 replayed digest bindings. Four historical resource identities remain explicitly unresolved. This is retained architecture evidence, not product identity, profile issuance, admission, PRQ-002 closure, Gate A acceptance, or runtime authority.

After release settlement, the next scientific frontier is deliberately human: an accountable non-author review of the open findings and Daniel's exact-byte accept/reject/amend decision on the odeya-jcs-0.3 profile. No observer agreement, structural vector, generated review, or green validator may supply either decision.

The canonical-migration wave is closed at audit zero (ADRs 0032–0050): all six blocking finding classes — 1,222 findings in total — now measure zero, every reissue ledgered so each reissued schema's predecessor verifies against its recorded checkpoint commit, and the audit reports gate_a_disposition: candidate_clear. The profile nevertheless remains unissued: freezing it requires independent review of the executed wave and the operator's exact-byte decision, which no session can grant itself. ADR 0097 adds a separate meta-evaluator after a copied Python result relabelled with Node metadata passed the existing comparator; retained oracle conformity and case-projection agreement therefore remain distinct from causal execution-origin evidence, which is still unwitnessed. That executed wave was attacked across four rounds of context-isolated adversarial review (ADRs 0051, 0063, 0069, 0077), each briefed to refute; each round found real defects — a fabricated disposition field in the evidence writer, a publication path a plain git push bypassed, coverage audits that could regenerate their own records — and each is retracted in place with corrected, re-measured figures. Those reviewers were context-isolated but not independent: they shared the producer's provider, model family, and prompt family, five of the twelve correlation axes ModelConfigurationRecord already enumerates, and that is recorded rather than glossed (see the reviewer-agent proposal). The ADR 0095 refutation followed the same discipline. T1 AuthorityAssignment is the next PRQ-013 downstream tranche only after the four named T0 prerequisites—canonical schema-identity candidate closure, standalone member-record contracts, PRQ-005 through PRQ-010 candidate corrections, and PRQ-013 individual-assurance-foundation candidate closure—are satisfied. The constitutional root/checkpoint/activation chain, independent reducers and verifiers, replay/recovery/correction-fanout evidence, rights-settled proof import, accountable human reviews, an exact candidate manifest, and the owner's exact-byte decision all remain mandatory before Gate A. The closure plan and current handoff retain the dependency order and every open limitation.

Only after Gate A acceptance may the operator separately authorize a bounded Gate B probe. One bounded replayable engine slice remains prohibited until any authorized probes are settled and the operator makes a separate explicit Gate C decision.

Any future authority expansion remains blocked until one full chain of custody survives replay, interruption, negative fixtures, recovery, measured independence, accountable review, and the operator's exact decision.