Repository navigation
Define control applicability, provider dependencies, and effect decisions #1352
Description
The admitted apparatus is conflated with the providers applicable to one crossing. The provider protocol cannot carry predecessor results, and effect phase handling can leave a denied parent eligible.
Acceptance criteria
- Distinguish admitted apparatus, required profile obligations, the applicable provider subset, proven inapplicability, and unresolved coverage at a specific state cut.
- Define dependency evaluation, predecessor-result inputs, shared-state scope, composition order, and atomic commit. Missing mandatory results cannot be treated as an empty successful evaluation.
- Define parent decisions, effect targets, execution prerequisites, independent consequences, and phase ordering. A deny/withhold decision must have the same meaning in every phase.
- Define mandatory dependency closure and optional-provider failure. Optional advice cannot acquire veto authority; bounded support is usable only when its admitted strength satisfies the requirement.
- Publish the decision, SEM-235/API-424 requirement amendments, ADR-108 clarifications, worked cases, and contract migration rules. Preserve separate admission, authority, and realization decisions.
References: Diagnosis, Applicability counterexample, Modular semantics.
Requirements
- SEM-235 — Modular Participant Control and Extensible Dynamic IFC Semantics
- API-424 — Participant-Control Provider, Composition and Effect Contracts
Activity
Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
🛠️ Picked up by /implement - driver codex, branch
1352-control-applicability-decisions, 2026-09-22T05:18:45.381Z.Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
gc workflow phase recorded:
preflight(issue #1352). Posted by the MCP server to enforce ordering between workflow steps (issue #794 MVP-2). Do not edit or delete — used by downstream tools to gate phase prerequisites.Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
gc workflow phase recorded:
preflight(issue #1352). Posted by the MCP server to enforce ordering between workflow steps (issue #794 MVP-2). Do not edit or delete — used by downstream tools to gate phase prerequisites.Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
gc workflow phase recorded:
plan(issue #1352). Posted by the MCP server to enforce ordering between workflow steps (issue #794 MVP-2). Do not edit or delete — used by downstream tools to gate phase prerequisites.Publish the #1352 semantic-design amendment for SEM-235 and API-424, following the existing #1351 design-publication pattern. The delivery defines the accepted contract and migration boundary; it does not claim new wire readers, production orchestration, or backend realization.
TDD paths: all five issue acceptance criteria and their new semantic relations use Path A bounded executable design witnesses alongside Path D explanatory prose; no documentation-only carve-out is claimed. The published requirements' existing domain/algebra, closed carriers, provenance, visibility, freshness, budgets and historical SEM-233 clauses remain covered by the existing finite SEM-235 and API-424 tests and explicit preservation clauses. These tests make bounded design claims only.
Security: retain bounded/closed ingress, trusted-context resolution, authority and projection/final-sink gates, safe coarse diagnostics, origin-bound effect authority, and commit/final-invocation fencing. No new parser, launcher, environment or secret surface is introduced. The predecessor view must respect disclosure authorization; a digest does not establish trust.
Maintainability: reuse current result/graph/conjunction concepts, ADR-104 store authority, API-407 support semantics, closed effect owners, ADR-059 pin tooling and requirement governance; do not duplicate runtime logic.
Extensibility: bind applicability, obligation coverage, slot dependencies, state scope, support constraints and effect prerequisites by revisioned identities, keeping new sinks/providers independent of backend-name branching.
Whole-repository impact: normative specs, ADR index, requirement records, reference docs, migration docs, bounded Python tests, requirement ownership/scope, targeted policy checks, pre-publish hygiene, CI and Sonar. No schema, package-version, changelog or release-history edit is planned.
Validation: set RAES_REQUIREMENT_UID=SEM-235; run the new explicit pytest modules plus test_sem_235_modular_control.py and test_api_424_composition_derivation.py; use file-local repo policy, targeted requirement-scope/ownership, ADR immutability/template checks, changed-file Ruff and link checks. Baseline: 47 existing targeted tests and initial file-local policy passed. Full test/integration/fuzz/completion/policy suites remain in CI. Run the required pre-push review, publish hook, CI/Sonar and readiness gates before requesting merge.
Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
gc_codex_review — sanitized deferred publication for issue #1352, cycle 1 of 1
Reviewed revision:
332e3e2ae74edabc42dd823f56648d034e2c9e93795fe128cf6d3d147817c948Architectural read
The semantic amendment separates apparatus identity, obligation coverage, dependency inputs, parent decisions and independently authorized effects. It reuses incumbent composition and atomic-store authorities, preserves historical interpretation, and states the finite model's limits. Both core and security review found no actionable issues in the complete 19-file diff.
Verdict:
shipFindings
Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
gc_codex_review pre-push cycle 1 of 1 complete for issue #1352 on branch '1352-control-applicability-decisions'. Posted by the MCP server to enforce the pre-push hard-cap-1 contract (issues #796, #804, #906). Do not edit or delete — used by the next
gc_codex_review(uncommitted) invocation to count cycles.Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
Review decision record — codex cycle 1 (issue #1352)
Reviewer: codex
Cycle: 1
Verdict:
shipArchitectural read:
Blocking findings: 0 (clean run)
Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
Pre-PR base synchronization
refs/remotes/origin/devatc3a9154b9be85f4cf60688df9c384385baae03cdalready_current7d0d8c34e147ba0641ee1c38e8b4da67911ad1b03df3f021b2d847bfc9aaa45aea4ae6766c34277fBrad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
Pre-PR base synchronization
refs/remotes/origin/devatc3a9154b9be85f4cf60688df9c384385baae03cdalready_currentb57796ae0ff6b3f4d02be653b51ce59c8ace7e88419dcf9d04a00723368aa474a23ead9457b2d580Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
Execution obligation PHASE-E-WORKFLOW-ON-DEV — Opened
Category: workflow
Observed state: Mechanical readiness refused with phase_e_workflow_missing: .github/workflows/ground-control-phase-e.yml is absent from the trusted dev base revision.
Impact: No trusted delivery handoff or ready-for-review record can be published until the workflow is present on dev.
Current obligation: Prepare and verify the official pinned Phase E workflow as a separate bootstrap delivery, obtain the required user merge into dev, then resolve this obligation and rerun readiness for #1352.
Evidence
Brad-Edwards commentedon Sep 22, 2026
Execution obligation PHASE-E-WORKFLOW-ON-DEV — Escalated
Category: workflow
Observed state: PR #1378 is implemented, reviewed and passes hosted checks, but readiness requires Phase E on dev. Prepared bootstrap PR #1381, whose official workflow is rejected by the repository permission policy.
Impact: The official post-merge finalizer requires issues write access, while current repository policy classifies every pull_request job as untrusted. The workflow cannot land with green CI without an explicit policy design repair.
Current obligation: Resolve the GOV-913 policy conflict under reviewed implementation scope, merge the verified bootstrap into dev with user authorization, then resolve this obligation and rerun #1352 readiness.
Evidence
Pause class: significant_security_decision
Decision request: Authorize /implement 1380 to review a narrowly bounded post-merge finalizer permission exception; no broader PR write-permission relaxation.
This obligation remains open while the decision is pending.