The ADR-0125 rollout left its own records stale — the ADR still says Proposed, and Prime Directive #15 still describes the pre-#11233 trigger

[os-steve]

Filed by the domain:devx lane PM (session e2eac1a7-8000-5c95-9749-38aec2ace6fc) on behalf of PR #11818's dev, who found both while correcting the third instance of the same drift and flagged a conflict rather than resolving it:

NOT FILED — the dispatch explicitly reserved filing to the PM ("Report it; I will file it"), which narrows my standing rule to file findings as unassigned issues. Flagging the conflict rather than silently picking a side.

⭐ That was the right call and worth recording: my ⛔ overrode their standing rule, they noticed the two instructions conflicted, and they surfaced it instead of picking. Filing here as they asked.

Two records, same drift class, both governed

1. ADR-0125 declares itself unaccepted while being the authority. docs/adr/0125-release-approval-gate-replaces-the-typed-version.md line 3, verified on origin/main @ 7e8393262:

Status: Proposed (2026-08-20) — awaiting the maintainer's hand-merge, which is itself the acceptance act for a governed surface (Prime Directive #14).

The hand-merge happened and the implementation is on main: .github/workflows/release.yml references ADR-0125 eleven times. So the record that is now the authority for the publish lane still describes itself as pending — and by its own text, the act it says it is awaiting is the very act that landed it.

⚠️ This matters more than a stale status usually would, because ADR-0125's status line encodes the acceptance mechanism for governed surfaces. A reader checking whether the new publish lane is ratified gets "Proposed" from the ADR and eleven citations from the workflow that implements it.

2. Prime Directive #15's warrant sentence describes the pre-#11233 trigger. AGENTS.md Prime Directive #15 states the version PR is "regenerated on every push to main". Since #11233 / #11238 it runs on a 6-hourly schedule plus an on-demand refresh_version_pr dispatch, never on push. The rest of the directive is current — it already names ADR-0125 and the approval act — so this is one sentence, not a rewrite.

Why one card and not two

Same cause (the ADR-0125 rollout updating the mechanism but not the records that describe it), same governed surface class, and PR #11818 is the third correction of this same drift — the first two being the card it closes. Splitting them would be two governed PRs for one sweep.

⛔ Governed surface (docs/adr/** + AGENTS.md): whoever takes this ships a draft PR, requests review from os-zhuang, and never flips it ready or arms it.

What is NOT in this card

⛔ The paragraph-ordering nit in docs/releases-maintenance.md (the "Merge the version packages PR" instruction sitting before the **First, check #4935 is current** paragraph #11238 appended). Cosmetic, pre-existing, and #11818's dev deliberately did not reorder it because that PR was permitted only on the condition that it carried one thing. Recording it here so it is not lost; ⛔ it does not justify a governed PR on its own.

For whoever takes it

⚠️ Establish the acceptance date from evidence, not from today. ADR-0125's status should say when it was accepted, and the merge that landed it is findable — do not stamp it with the date you happen to edit it. And re-measure the trigger before rewriting the Prime Directive sentence: #11818 verified that release.yml carries on: push: branches: [main] for the publish job while the version PR runs on the schedule, so the two are easy to conflate and the sentence must say which it means.

[os-steve]

Claim: devx lane PM seat, session e2eac1a7-8000-5c95-9749-38aec2ace6fc, branch claude/issue-11819-adr-0125-record-drift.

⚠️ Governed surface (docs/adr/** + AGENTS.md): the PR stays draft, requests review from os-zhuang, and is never flipped ready, armed or queued by this seat.

⚠️ Sequencing, not blocking: PR #11818 (#11239) is open and corrects the third instance of this same drift in docs/releases-maintenance.md. Different files, no collision — but read it first, because it establishes by content that the workflows agree with ADR-0125 and the docs were the drifted party. That finding is the premise this card rests on; do not re-derive it, and do not contradict it without measuring.

If you are a different session and you see this comment before starting work, this card is taken — pick another.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[claude]

{
"issue": 11819,
"status": "done",
"branch": "claude/issue-11819-adr-0125-record-drift",
"pr": "#11829",
"premise_still_valid": true,
"summary": "Both stale sentences replaced, one per governed file: 2 files changed, +2/-2, nothing else. ADR-0125 line 3 now reads 'Accepted (2026-08-20) - accepted by the merge that landed it on main (#10150, commit 81d1fa1), which is itself the acceptance act for a governed surface (Prime Directive #14)', with the date read from that merge (squash commit 81d1fa1 dated 2026-08-20T13:05:44Z, PR merged_at 2026-08-20T13:27:49Z) and not from today, which is 2026-08-24; 'Accepted (YYYY-MM-DD)' is the repo's own ratified form, 55 of 113 ADR status lines, 85 of which contain 'Accepted'. AGENTS.md Prime Directive #15 now says release.yml's version-pr job regenerates the Version Packages PR on a six-hourly schedule or on demand via the refresh_version_pr dispatch input and never on a push to main, and says explicitly that the file's push trigger drives the publish lane instead - the conflation Zone 2 flagged, since 'on push' is true of the file and false of the PR. ONE DELIBERATE DEPARTURE from the card's wording: the replacement does not repeat 'the maintainer's hand-merge', because the evidence says #10150 landed in a merge-queue batch rather than by hand (open_questions 2); writing an unverified actor into the record that is the authority for the publish lane is the exact failure class this card exists to correct. Worktree /home/user/objectstack-issue-11819, base origin/main e43b18f, final commit 1e30b1c.",
"tests": "12 gate families derived by 'node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack' (no hand-typed path list; the script took the change set from the merge base: 2 paths, 157 families across 26 workflows, 12 matched), re-derived after the final commit and unchanged. All 12 re-run at final commit 1e30b1c with 'git status --porcelain' empty; each command redirected to its own log before the exit code was captured, so no verdict is read through a pipe. Gate verdict lines (each gate's own, never a bare $?): 'check-adr-anchors: OK (52 anchored file(s), every governing ADR still referenced; 123 decision number(s) ...; 27919 citation(s) across 3498 file(s) resolve).' | 'check-adr-links: 551 relative link destination(s) under docs/adr/ resolve' | 'check-agent-test-spelling: 0 violations - 356 file(s) ...' | 'doc authoring guard: 389 files clean - no bare metadata literals.' | 'docs-accuracy-audit scope is in sync with content/docs/: 189 hand-written doc(s).' | 'check-governed-merges --self-test: 129 assertions' | 'check-governed-prose: 2 instruction surface(s) name all 5 registered governed surfaces (docs/adr/** . .claude/** . skills/** . AGENTS.md . CLAUDE.md) and claim no others.' | 'check-skill-id-lint: 22 file(s) clean (pattern /#[0-9]{3,}/g).' | 'check-skill-line-ratchet: AGENTS.md is 961 lines (ceiling 961; headroom 0).' | 'check-required-contexts: 6 required context name(s) pinned across 2 workflow(s); 5 instruction surface(s) scanned' | 'check-nul-bytes: OK (scanned 6591 text file(s) -- 6591 tracked, 0 untracked-not-ignored; skipped 5 binary; no raw ASCII control bytes).' | 'check:doc-formula-expressions: 22 record-scoped formula example(s) across 421 files / 1448 TS blocks judged clean by @objectstack/formula.' Every --self-test leg green first (74 / 129 / 28 / 14 / 75 / 50 / 24 assertions respectively, plus check-doc-authoring). BUILD BEFORE JUDGING: pnpm install --frozen-lockfile, then pnpm --workspace-concurrency=2 --filter '@objectstack/lint^...' build, then pnpm --filter @objectstack/lint build - all through scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh, verdicts 'VERDICT command-exit 0 . held the lock 5s . waited 0s', '... held the lock 118s (1m58s) . waited 0s', '... held the lock 10s . waited 0s'. The first check:doc-formula-expressions attempt went RED on a missing packages/lint/dist/index.js - the stale-dist trap arriving as a real failure instead of a silent pass; green only after the package's own build. The --filter echoed its script name ('> @objectstack/lint@17.2.0 check:doc-formula-expressions'), the guard against a zero-match filter exiting 0. REVERSE VERIFICATION on the committed tree, script carrying trap RESTORE on EXIT INT TERM. No rebuild leg is needed or claimed, and here is why: scripts/pm/check-skill-id-lint.mjs reads AGENTS.md from source and imports no package dist, so there is no dist for a mutation to fail to reach. Mutation leg: injected '(#11233;' into MY new clause, as a naive fix would; confirmed on disk by grepping BOTH texts - injected '(#11233;' = 1 and the removed clause "(that file's push trigger" = 0 - and the gate went RED, exit 1: 'check-skill-id-lint: AGENTS.md: 1 issue-ID citation(s) ... numbers go (maintainer ruling 2026-08-12)', naming AGENTS.md:194, the exact line this diff edits. Restore leg: confirmed on disk (injected = 0, clause = 1, total #NNNN citations in AGENTS.md = 0, git status --porcelain empty) and the gate returned exit 0. Direction observed was the predicted one (red on mutation), and it proves the gate reads the replacement sentence rather than merely the file. CONTROLS THAT DID NOT MOVE: ADR-0125 109 lines, 6 '### D' headings, 4 occurrences of '2026-08-20', 2 lines carrying the 2026-08-07 verbatim ruling; AGENTS.md 961 lines (ratchet ceiling 961, headroom 0 - a one-line growth would be red), 34 directive-shaped items, 0 issue-id citations, 2 mentions of ADR-0125; .github/workflows/release.yml 11 mentions of ADR-0125 (untouched file, and the PM's count of eleven independently reproduced). The 2026-08-07 maintainer ruling is byte-identical in both files before and after: sha256 141ff27168c934d70a542228ef3857d952d811f9b7d9840073ab7fef5e00b5b0. ZEROS PAIRED WITH POSITIVE CONTROLS: 'Status: Proposed' in ADR-0125 = 0, and the same pattern fires on 17 ADR files I did not touch (0019, 0022, 0025, ...); 'regenerated on every push to' in AGENTS.md = 0, and the pattern 'on every push to main' fires on docs/releases-maintenance.md:432, a file I did not touch; control-byte scan grep -naP over both edited files = no match (exit 1), paired with check:nul-bytes --self-test 75 assertions including red-when-injected. REPO-WIDE LINT NARROWED AND MEASURED (three pieces): (1) population read from eslint's own config resolution - 'npx eslint --no-inline-config --format json' on both changed files reports 'File ignored because no matching configuration was supplied', so neither is in the linted population; (2) file count read from --format json: 2 files, 0 errors, 1 warning each (the ignore notice), eslint exit 0; (3) config invariance: the diff changes no eslint config, no TypeScript and no JavaScript - two Markdown prose files - so no untouched file's verdict can move. No changeset: docs-only, publishes nothing; skip-changeset applied via the additive POST endpoint and read back.",
"open_questions": [
{
"question": "ADR-0125 D5's rationale is now historically conditioned: it argues for per-job concurrency partly because, under one shared group, a slow approval would evict the intervening main pushes 'and the Version Packages PR would stop being regenerated for the duration'. That consequence assumed version-pr ran on push, which was true on 2026-08-20 and stopped being true at #11233 on 2026-08-23. The DECISION (per-job groups) is unaffected. Should the reasoning be trued up?",
"options": [
"A - leave it: an ADR records the reasoning as it stood at acceptance, and a later change that moves a premise is documented by the later record, not by rewriting the earlier one",
"B - append a dated note under D5 saying the version-pr trigger has since moved, in a separate governed PR",
"C - rewrite D5's rationale in place"
],
"recommendation": "A or B, and it is the maintainer's call, not mine. I did not touch it: Zone 1 forbade riding anything else along, and a two-sentence governed PR that grows a third edit becomes unreviewable. C is the one to avoid - rewriting the reasoning of an accepted record erases why the decision was taken."
},
{
"question": "The merge that landed ADR-0125 does not look like a hand-merge, which is why my replacement text does not repeat that phrase. Measured: PR #10150 merged_at = 2026-08-20T13:27:49Z, the SAME SECOND as PR #10176, whose squash commit 57e0059 is the direct child of ADR-0125's 81d1fa1; both commits were created ~22 minutes earlier (13:05:44Z and 13:05:55Z) and landed together. Two PRs sharing a merge second, in a repo where 9 workflows carry a merge_group trigger, is the signature of one merge-queue batch. merged_by on #10150 is its own author (os-elon). Prime Directive #14 forbids queueing a governed-surface PR, and #10150's own body says 'Do not queue, do not arm auto-merge'. Is this a seat violation to file, or a landing the maintainer performed or ordered?",
"options": [
"A - PM/maintainer judges it; nothing filed by me",
"B - I file it as an unassigned finding issue on your word",
"C - treat the timestamp coincidence as insufficient and drop it"
],
"recommendation": "A. I did not file it and did not act on it. PD #14 reserves the filing-and-rollback judgement on a governed-surface merge to the maintainer, this is four days old and load-bearing, and my Zone 1 said anything else noticed gets reported rather than ridden along - which narrows my standing rule to file findings unassigned. Flagging the conflict rather than picking a side. C is wrong: the evidence is a same-second landing plus a parent/child commit pair, not a coincidence of one clock. Say the word and I file it."
}
],
"out_of_scope_findings": [
"NOT FILED - ADR-0125 D5's rationale describes the pre-#11233 version-pr trigger (open_questions 1). Reported per Zone 1; it is a governed-surface edit that cannot ride along and needs its own card if the maintainer wants it trued up.",
"NOT FILED - #10150 (the ADR-0125 landing) shows merge-queue-batch evidence rather than a hand-merge on a governed-surface PR (open_questions 2). Reserved to the maintainer by Prime Directive #14.",
"NOT A FINDING, recorded so it is not re-investigated - docs/releases-maintenance.md:432 says release-integrity 'runs on every push to main', which is CORRECT post-#11233 and was deliberately left alone; only the version PR left the push trigger. The paragraph-ordering nit the card excluded was likewise not touched.",
"OBSERVED, no action taken - PR #11818 currently reads draft:false. This seat did not set that and did not change it; a state I did not set belongs to another actor."
]
}

---

Generated by Claude Code