Repository navigation
records(#1169): correct stale review-status lines in FB and PR-QA - #1199
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013T6pfKuv5mi3MXtKjH2tZb
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013T6pfKuv5mi3MXtKjH2tZb
Merge record: #1199 (owner-approved, chat, 2026-11-08)The owner (amaybaum) approved this in chat with the coordinating session on 2026-11-08: "Approve #1199 merge and #1198 integration".
Merged as Checks before the merge:
Scope: status-line corrections only. They record that the quarter-phase records were independently model-reviewed (ACCEPT at Generated by Claude Code |
…tive for Π_A and Π_B) Owner-approved (chat, 2026-11-08): "#1198 — M-INACC — Approve normal merge after #1199 — Preserve its preregistration, amendments and negative results unchanged." Verified: exactly the five unit files (DESIGN, RESULT, A1–A3), byte-identical to the reviewed head; clean merge onto f28eb29; main CI green on f28eb29.
Records-only correction. Reviewed; waiting for green CI.
DESIGN.md:21alongside the two previously approved lines. Leave the two closing sentences unchanged, but explain in the PR description that their independent-review requirement has already been satisfied. … No additional scope expansion."f6570e9b0696d35daa97e043cb64b3a46a894af0, based on mainf88c1842. It changes one line in each of three files.Changes
Each line said "review pending". Each now cites the #1189 reviews:
quarter-phase-feedback-20261107/RESULT.md:3. "WIP / author paper result" is kept.quarter-phase-native-20261107/PROOF-RECOVERY.md:3. "WIP" is kept.quarter-phase-native-20261107/DESIGN.md:21. This is the heading of the "Forward proof recovery" note. Q-A: feedback control boundary and paper proof repairs #1189 reviewed that recovery's forward changes to DESIGN; Q-A: can OI natively produce the quarter-phase mechanism? (#1169 step 3) #1184 reviewed the original Q-A DESIGN.Left unchanged by owner decision
RESULT.md:188–189: "Independent review of the exact pushed paper is required before its author result can be treated as accepted".PROOF-RECOVERY.md:212: "Independent review of the exact pushed forward patch is required".Both sentences state a general requirement. The #1189 reviews cited above satisfy it. The sentences do not mean review is still pending.
Evidence
313a93ef, with parents499463f0and8ca8ce30.1f992246and covers RESULT, PROOF-RECOVERY and DESIGN.8ca8ce30.8ca8ce30./root/feedback_review), separate from the author. Hence "model-reviewed".legacy-records.json.Review of this PR
3e52882b: ACCEPT WITH CHANGES.f6570e9b: ACCEPT WITH CHANGES. Its one item, F4, asked that the option-A decision be recorded; it is now at c.6719814192. The diff needed no change.Not authorized: merge. That needs green CI, then a separate owner decision.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_013T6pfKuv5mi3MXtKjH2tZb