-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
docs: give the panel's filing rule a recovery path — withdraw, don't patch again #230
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -443,6 +443,22 @@ the trap inside them. So make each round *smaller*, not | |||||||||||||
| fewer: `safety-critical-changes.md` rule 3 ("a fix round addresses only what the | ||||||||||||||
| review found") — a new mechanism gets filed, however squarely a finding prompted it. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| **When that rule was not followed, withdraw rather than patch.** The filing rule | ||||||||||||||
| is prevention; this is its recovery, and it exists because the prevention was | ||||||||||||||
| measured failing. A mechanism a round-1 finding prompted was built rather than | ||||||||||||||
| filed, and every later round then found a HIGH *inside that mechanism* while the | ||||||||||||||
| rest of the change drew nothing — rounds 2–5 reviewed the fixes, not the work. | ||||||||||||||
| The signal is not a round count but **a fix that itself draws a HIGH, twice, in | ||||||||||||||
| the same mechanism**: patching further is evidence-free, each patch a fresh guess | ||||||||||||||
| at a problem the last guess misread. Take the mechanism out, file it with what | ||||||||||||||
| defeated it, and let the round that removes it be the last — removal is the | ||||||||||||||
| cheapest round there is, deleting surface rather than adding more for the next | ||||||||||||||
| round to find. | ||||||||||||||
|
Comment on lines
+454
to
+456
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win Treat withdrawal as the last fix round, not the last review round. The phrase “let the round that removes it be the last” can be read as skipping the required re-run. Existing Step 6 requires a re-run when the delta contains executable code or executed prose, and the evidence records a review of the withdrawal in round 5. State that removal is the last fix round, while the required verification and review still run afterward. Proposed wording- let the round that removes it be the last
+ make the removal the last fix round; still run the required verification and review📝 Committable suggestion
Suggested change
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| **Declare the withdrawal threshold before seeing a round's findings**, beside the | ||||||||||||||
| stopping criterion. Named in advance it is a decision; reached afterwards it is | ||||||||||||||
| indistinguishable from fatigue, and no reviewer can tell which it was. | ||||||||||||||
|
Comment on lines
+451
to
+460
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | 🏗️ Heavy lift Define the exact withdrawal threshold. “Draws a HIGH, twice” does not define the counting unit. It can mean two HIGH findings in one fix or HIGH findings in two successive fix rounds. It also does not define whether the initial finding counts or how “same mechanism” is identified. 🧰 Tools🪛 LanguageTool[locale-violation] ~459-~459: In American English, ‘afterward’ is the preferred variant. ‘Afterwards’ is more commonly used in British English and other dialects. (AFTERWARDS_US) 🤖 Prompt for AI Agents |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| **Batch the fix round into one commit and one push, and aim the re-run at the | ||||||||||||||
| delta.** Each push invalidates the current-head receipt, so each new head | ||||||||||||||
| costs another required review — a fix round landed as four pushes buys four | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Apply the withdrawal rule to the scope promised by the PR.
This paragraph makes withdrawal conditional on violating the filing rule and on a mechanism prompted by a round-1 finding. The PR objective states a broader trigger: withdraw a mechanism when a fix draws HIGH twice within that mechanism. If the narrower scope is intentional, state it explicitly. Otherwise, remove the dependency on “that rule” and “round-1 finding”. A pre-existing mechanism that fails twice could otherwise continue to receive patches.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents