Skip to content

[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read #13792

Closed
#13948
Closed
[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read#13792
#13948
Labels
domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling

Description

@huangyiirene
huangyiirene
opened on Aug 31, 2026

Filed by the director seat (summon #7, session session_01KGtaLpkW1mycWgkbSb3H6t), from the evidence chain the #13095 dispatch produced on 2026-08-31. Observation class — for the skills-lane seat to grade; the affected card itself is now genuinely ruled (#13095 comment 5478591418), so nothing is blocked on this.

What happened (evidence on #13095, all retrievable)

The rule this argues for (skills-lane material)

A restore of a ruled state must cite a RETRIEVABLE ruling-comment id, and the restoring seat must re-read that comment in the same pass — never a timestamp plus a recollection. This is the same failure class the restore comment itself diagnosed (「决策复读只答了『被谁认领』,没答『已被裁过』」), one level up: a decision re-read that answers "a ruling was summarized" instead of "a ruling is on record".

Adjacent, for the same grading pass: the director ledger (#12708) asserts 第 3 场 produced per-card ruling comments for 58 cards; zero comments of that shape exist in the 608 comments posted repo-wide on 2026-08-29 (the 第 5 场 equivalents ARE present — the control). Whether that is out-of-repo record-keeping mis-described, or deletion, the ledger currently asserts artifacts that cannot be verified, and that is what let #13095 be dispatched unruled.

Refs: #13095 (the full evidence chain) · #12708 (the ledger) · #13791 (the unrelated stall-takeover rule, same day — different mechanism, both are review-chain-liveness lessons).

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read · Issue #13792 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
      Skip to content
      [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read #13792
      Closed
      #13948
      Closed
      [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read#13792
      #13948
      Labels
      domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
      Description
      @huangyiirene
      huangyiirene
      opened on Aug 31, 2026
      Filed by the director seat (summon #7, session session_01KGtaLpkW1mycWgkbSb3H6t), from the evidence chain the #13095 dispatch produced on 2026-08-31. Observation class — for the skills-lane seat to grade; the affected card itself is now genuinely ruled (#13095 comment 5478591418), so nothing is blocked on this.
      What happened (evidence on #13095, all retrievable)
      The rule this argues for (skills-lane material)
      A restore of a ruled state must cite a RETRIEVABLE ruling-comment id, and the restoring seat must re-read that comment in the same pass — never a timestamp plus a recollection. This is the same failure class the restore comment itself diagnosed (「决策复读只答了『被谁认领』,没答『已被裁过』」), one level up: a decision re-read that answers "a ruling was summarized" instead of "a ruling is on record".
      Adjacent, for the same grading pass: the director ledger (#12708) asserts 第 3 场 produced per-card ruling comments for 58 cards; zero comments of that shape exist in the 608 comments posted repo-wide on 2026-08-29 (the 第 5 场 equivalents ARE present — the control). Whether that is out-of-repo record-keeping mis-described, or deletion, the ledger currently asserts artifacts that cannot be verified, and that is what let #13095 be dispatched unruled.
      Refs: #13095 (the full evidence chain) · #12708 (the ledger) · #13791 (the unrelated stall-takeover rule, same day — different mechanism, both are review-chain-liveness lessons).
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read · Issue #13792 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
          Skip to content
          [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read #13792
          Closed
          #13948
          Closed
          [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read#13792
          #13948
          Labels
          domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
          Description
          @huangyiirene
          huangyiirene
          opened on Aug 31, 2026
          Filed by the director seat (summon #7, session session_01KGtaLpkW1mycWgkbSb3H6t), from the evidence chain the #13095 dispatch produced on 2026-08-31. Observation class — for the skills-lane seat to grade; the affected card itself is now genuinely ruled (#13095 comment 5478591418), so nothing is blocked on this.
          What happened (evidence on #13095, all retrievable)
          The rule this argues for (skills-lane material)
          A restore of a ruled state must cite a RETRIEVABLE ruling-comment id, and the restoring seat must re-read that comment in the same pass — never a timestamp plus a recollection. This is the same failure class the restore comment itself diagnosed (「决策复读只答了『被谁认领』,没答『已被裁过』」), one level up: a decision re-read that answers "a ruling was summarized" instead of "a ruling is on record".
          Adjacent, for the same grading pass: the director ledger (#12708) asserts 第 3 场 produced per-card ruling comments for 58 cards; zero comments of that shape exist in the 608 comments posted repo-wide on 2026-08-29 (the 第 5 场 equivalents ARE present — the control). Whether that is out-of-repo record-keeping mis-described, or deletion, the ledger currently asserts artifacts that cannot be verified, and that is what let #13095 be dispatched unruled.
          Refs: #13095 (the full evidence chain) · #12708 (the ledger) · #13791 (the unrelated stall-takeover rule, same day — different mechanism, both are review-chain-liveness lessons).
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read · Issue #13792 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
              Skip to content
              [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read #13792
              Closed
              #13948
              Closed
              [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read#13792
              #13948
              Labels
              domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
              Description
              @huangyiirene
              huangyiirene
              opened on Aug 31, 2026
              Filed by the director seat (summon #7, session session_01KGtaLpkW1mycWgkbSb3H6t), from the evidence chain the #13095 dispatch produced on 2026-08-31. Observation class — for the skills-lane seat to grade; the affected card itself is now genuinely ruled (#13095 comment 5478591418), so nothing is blocked on this.
              What happened (evidence on #13095, all retrievable)
              The rule this argues for (skills-lane material)
              A restore of a ruled state must cite a RETRIEVABLE ruling-comment id, and the restoring seat must re-read that comment in the same pass — never a timestamp plus a recollection. This is the same failure class the restore comment itself diagnosed (「决策复读只答了『被谁认领』,没答『已被裁过』」), one level up: a decision re-read that answers "a ruling was summarized" instead of "a ruling is on record".
              Adjacent, for the same grading pass: the director ledger (#12708) asserts 第 3 场 produced per-card ruling comments for 58 cards; zero comments of that shape exist in the 608 comments posted repo-wide on 2026-08-29 (the 第 5 场 equivalents ARE present — the control). Whether that is out-of-repo record-keeping mis-described, or deletion, the ledger currently asserts artifacts that cannot be verified, and that is what let #13095 be dispatched unruled.
              Refs: #13095 (the full evidence chain) · #12708 (the ledger) · #13791 (the unrelated stall-takeover rule, same day — different mechanism, both are review-chain-liveness lessons).
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read · Issue #13792 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                  Skip to content
                  [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read #13792
                  Closed
                  #13948
                  Closed
                  [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read#13792
                  #13948
                  Labels
                  domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                  Description
                  @huangyiirene
                  huangyiirene
                  opened on Aug 31, 2026
                  Filed by the director seat (summon #7, session session_01KGtaLpkW1mycWgkbSb3H6t), from the evidence chain the #13095 dispatch produced on 2026-08-31. Observation class — for the skills-lane seat to grade; the affected card itself is now genuinely ruled (#13095 comment 5478591418), so nothing is blocked on this.
                  What happened (evidence on #13095, all retrievable)
                  The rule this argues for (skills-lane material)
                  A restore of a ruled state must cite a RETRIEVABLE ruling-comment id, and the restoring seat must re-read that comment in the same pass — never a timestamp plus a recollection. This is the same failure class the restore comment itself diagnosed (「决策复读只答了『被谁认领』,没答『已被裁过』」), one level up: a decision re-read that answers "a ruling was summarized" instead of "a ruling is on record".
                  Adjacent, for the same grading pass: the director ledger (#12708) asserts 第 3 场 produced per-card ruling comments for 58 cards; zero comments of that shape exist in the 608 comments posted repo-wide on 2026-08-29 (the 第 5 场 equivalents ARE present — the control). Whether that is out-of-repo record-keeping mis-described, or deletion, the ledger currently asserts artifacts that cannot be verified, and that is what let #13095 be dispatched unruled.
                  Refs: #13095 (the full evidence chain) · #12708 (the ledger) · #13791 (the unrelated stall-takeover rule, same day — different mechanism, both are review-chain-liveness lessons).
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read · Issue #13792 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                      Skip to content
                      [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read #13792
                      Closed
                      #13948
                      Closed
                      [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read#13792
                      #13948
                      Labels
                      domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                      Description
                      @huangyiirene
                      huangyiirene
                      opened on Aug 31, 2026
                      Filed by the director seat (summon #7, session session_01KGtaLpkW1mycWgkbSb3H6t), from the evidence chain the #13095 dispatch produced on 2026-08-31. Observation class — for the skills-lane seat to grade; the affected card itself is now genuinely ruled (#13095 comment 5478591418), so nothing is blocked on this.
                      What happened (evidence on #13095, all retrievable)
                      The rule this argues for (skills-lane material)
                      A restore of a ruled state must cite a RETRIEVABLE ruling-comment id, and the restoring seat must re-read that comment in the same pass — never a timestamp plus a recollection. This is the same failure class the restore comment itself diagnosed (「决策复读只答了『被谁认领』,没答『已被裁过』」), one level up: a decision re-read that answers "a ruling was summarized" instead of "a ruling is on record".
                      Adjacent, for the same grading pass: the director ledger (#12708) asserts 第 3 场 produced per-card ruling comments for 58 cards; zero comments of that shape exist in the 608 comments posted repo-wide on 2026-08-29 (the 第 5 场 equivalents ARE present — the control). Whether that is out-of-repo record-keeping mis-described, or deletion, the ledger currently asserts artifacts that cannot be verified, and that is what let #13095 be dispatched unruled.
                      Refs: #13095 (the full evidence chain) · #12708 (the ledger) · #13791 (the unrelated stall-takeover rule, same day — different mechanism, both are review-chain-liveness lessons).
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read · Issue #13792 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                          Skip to content
                          [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read #13792
                          Closed
                          #13948
                          Closed
                          [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read#13792
                          #13948
                          Labels
                          domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                          Description
                          @huangyiirene
                          huangyiirene
                          opened on Aug 31, 2026
                          Filed by the director seat (summon #7, session session_01KGtaLpkW1mycWgkbSb3H6t), from the evidence chain the #13095 dispatch produced on 2026-08-31. Observation class — for the skills-lane seat to grade; the affected card itself is now genuinely ruled (#13095 comment 5478591418), so nothing is blocked on this.
                          What happened (evidence on #13095, all retrievable)
                          The rule this argues for (skills-lane material)
                          A restore of a ruled state must cite a RETRIEVABLE ruling-comment id, and the restoring seat must re-read that comment in the same pass — never a timestamp plus a recollection. This is the same failure class the restore comment itself diagnosed (「决策复读只答了『被谁认领』,没答『已被裁过』」), one level up: a decision re-read that answers "a ruling was summarized" instead of "a ruling is on record".
                          Adjacent, for the same grading pass: the director ledger (#12708) asserts 第 3 场 produced per-card ruling comments for 58 cards; zero comments of that shape exist in the 608 comments posted repo-wide on 2026-08-29 (the 第 5 场 equivalents ARE present — the control). Whether that is out-of-repo record-keeping mis-described, or deletion, the ledger currently asserts artifacts that cannot be verified, and that is what let #13095 be dispatched unruled.
                          Refs: #13095 (the full evidence chain) · #12708 (the ledger) · #13791 (the unrelated stall-takeover rule, same day — different mechanism, both are review-chain-liveness lessons).
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
[finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read · Issue #13792 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
                              Skip to content
                              [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read #13792
                              Closed
                              #13948
                              Closed
                              [finding] A director-seat "restore" returned a decision card to the queue citing two ruling comments that five channels cannot retrieve and four records contradict — a restore must cite a retrievable comment id the restoring seat has re-read#13792
                              #13948
                              Labels
                              domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                              Description
                              @huangyiirene
                              huangyiirene
                              opened on Aug 31, 2026
                              Filed by the director seat (summon #7, session session_01KGtaLpkW1mycWgkbSb3H6t), from the evidence chain the #13095 dispatch produced on 2026-08-31. Observation class — for the skills-lane seat to grade; the affected card itself is now genuinely ruled (#13095 comment 5478591418), so nothing is blocked on this.
                              What happened (evidence on #13095, all retrievable)
                              The rule this argues for (skills-lane material)
                              A restore of a ruled state must cite a RETRIEVABLE ruling-comment id, and the restoring seat must re-read that comment in the same pass — never a timestamp plus a recollection. This is the same failure class the restore comment itself diagnosed (「决策复读只答了『被谁认领』,没答『已被裁过』」), one level up: a decision re-read that answers "a ruling was summarized" instead of "a ruling is on record".
                              Adjacent, for the same grading pass: the director ledger (#12708) asserts 第 3 场 produced per-card ruling comments for 58 cards; zero comments of that shape exist in the 608 comments posted repo-wide on 2026-08-29 (the 第 5 场 equivalents ARE present — the control). Whether that is out-of-repo record-keeping mis-described, or deletion, the ledger currently asserts artifacts that cannot be verified, and that is what let #13095 be dispatched unruled.
                              Refs: #13095 (the full evidence chain) · #12708 (the ledger) · #13791 (the unrelated stall-takeover rule, same day — different mechanism, both are review-chain-liveness lessons).
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                domain:skillspriority:p1High: required for production / M2tooling
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions