Amend final-review authorization target and outcome closure

[samovers]

Depends on: #10 and the Phase A candidate in #11.

Blocks: #15.

Outcome

Amend the non-authoritative authorization Phase A candidate so final review actions preserve active OFARM review scope and bind the exact result posture needed by the separately owned ReviewDecision protected-effect contract.

Primary trust boundary

Canonical authorization law: the exact authority target and effect-intent content selected for final review actions.

This is separate from #15, which owns ReviewDecision result mappings, event/commit classification, postconditions, and validation evidence.

Triggering contradiction

Active OFARM law defines ReviewDecision as an immutable governance act that changes the in-force status of assertions or accepted event consequences. Current ReviewDecision v0.1 permits ACCEPTED_EVENT_CONSEQUENCE, and a current example exercises REVIEW_SUPERSEDE against that family.

The semantically approved authorization candidate instead assigns all final review actions to RP_REVIEW_TARGET_ONE, whose closed target list omits ACCEPTED_EVENT_CONSEQUENCE. A protected-effect contract cannot restore that target locally without widening authority beyond the selected authorization rule.

The candidate also says the review decision kind is fixed by action class, but REVIEW_REJECT_OR_CONTEST permits two materially different result states. The exact REJECTED versus CONTESTED posture must be bound inside the effect intent so the domain contract can reject substitution.

Intended PR boundary

One bounded amendment to the existing candidate document on PR #11. No accepted RFC, active baseline, current/draft schema, domain result contract, Event Grammar, runtime code, currentness, or OFARM2 change.

Because PR #11 already received steward semantic approval at b0e0409, any amendment requires renewed review and steward approval before #15 resumes.

Acceptance criteria

• Make ACCEPTED_EVENT_CONSEQUENCE an explicit eligible target for the applicable final review actions without silently widening unrelated action classes.
• Preserve one concrete authority target and exact immutable target ref/revision or digest.
• Define the final-review intent outcome posture exactly:
  • REVIEW_ACCEPT binds ACCEPTED;
  • REVIEW_SUPERSEDE binds SUPERSEDED;
  • REVIEW_REJECT_OR_CONTEST requires one intent-bound closed value, REJECTED or CONTESTED.
• Keep the outcome posture inside the single validated effect intent; no mirrored caller field may select or override it.
• Add hostile cases for omission/substitution of ACCEPTED_EVENT_CONSEQUENCE targets and REJECTED/CONTESTED result substitution.
• Update the relevant invariant, traceability entry, steward approval item, and completion criterion.
• Retain the one-file, draft, non-authoritative PR boundary.

Non-goals

• No ReviewDecision result schema or protected-effect mapping; Define final ReviewDecision protected-effect contract #15 owns that boundary.
• No change to who may perform final review or how authority paths are evaluated.
• No REVIEW_REQUEST commit-class closure.
• No expansion of read targets or other action classes.
• No active-law promotion, schema work, runtime implementation, or merge authorization.

What is next: obtain explicit direction to amend PR #11, then renew semantic review and steward approval before resuming #15.

[samovers]

Implemented the bounded amendment in draft PR #11 at commit baf9eed.

The candidate now:

• gives the three final review actions a separate exact-target policy that includes ACCEPTED_EVENT_CONSEQUENCE;
• leaves REVIEW_REQUEST, read targets, evidence attachment, and unrelated action classes unchanged;
• binds the exact final outcome posture inside the validated effect intent; and
• adds the requested hostile cases, invariant, traceability, approval-card, and completion-criterion coverage.

Only the existing non-authoritative candidate file changed. Repository validation, generated-currentness, Markdown tables, and 20/20 matrix alignment pass.

The previous steward approval at b0e0409 is superseded for the amended head. Issue #15 remains paused until renewed semantic re-review and explicit steward approval are recorded on PR #11.

What is next: complete renewed review and approval on PR #11 before resuming #15.

[samovers]

Completed by the bounded amendment at baf9eed06c8db4b80d27355d7c05678e966f0eef on draft PR #11.

The current-head re-review found no blocking findings, no scope drift, and no new over-design. Renewed steward semantic approval is recorded on PR #11. The amendment remains one non-authoritative authorization candidate file and changes no active law, schema, runtime, or currentness.

Issue #15 may now resume as a separate protected-effect-contract candidate. Its result mappings, event/commit classification, postconditions, and validation evidence remain outside PR #11.

What is next: resume issue #15 without reopening the authorization-law boundary.

[samovers]

Reopened after review of PR #17 exposed a second contradiction inside the same authorization-target trust boundary.

Active OFARM law still supports final review over case scope:

• ReviewDecision v0.1 permits EVIDENCE_SUFFICIENCY_CASE as a reviewed family;
• the accepted Authority Action Matrix gives REVIEW_ACCEPT and REVIEW_REJECT_OR_CONTEST assertion, consequence, and case scope; and
• EvidenceSufficiencyCase v0.2 is the current/default carrier and supports linked review decisions.

The reviewed PR #11 head baf9eed06c8db4b80d27355d7c05678e966f0eef omits EVIDENCE_SUFFICIENCY_CASE from the exact resource policies selected by those two actions. PR #17 cannot declare that active family ineligible or add it locally because target eligibility is authorization law.

Bounded amendment requested on PR #11:

• give REVIEW_ACCEPT and REVIEW_REJECT_OR_CONTEST a separate exact final-review target policy that adds EVIDENCE_SUFFICIENCY_CASE;
• leave REVIEW_SUPERSEDE, REVIEW_REQUEST, and every unrelated action unchanged;
• preserve one exact immutable target ref/revision or digest;
• update the affected inventory statement, hostile case, invariant, traceability item, approval card, and completion criterion; and
• obtain renewed semantic review and approval for the amended head.

This does not edit ReviewDecision result mapping, consequence composition, event/commit classification, schemas, runtime, currentness, or OFARM2. PR #17 remains a separate domain-contract boundary and may be revised in parallel, but it must retain this prerequisite before machine materialization.

What is next: amend the one existing authorization candidate file on PR #11 and request renewed semantic review.

[samovers]

Implemented the reopened authorization prerequisite in draft PR #11 at 5974bb916ac8a2c5a6230facbb9836f639c754c3.

The one-file amendment gives only REVIEW_ACCEPT and REVIEW_REJECT_OR_CONTEST the exact case-eligible target policy containing EVIDENCE_SUFFICIENCY_CASE. REVIEW_SUPERSEDE retains its narrower prior policy; REVIEW_REQUEST and all unrelated actions remain unchanged.

The full local repository suite and all four GitHub checks pass. Core and extension matrices remain aligned at 20/20 actions, and the new policy has one definition with exactly two selections.

The prior semantic approval at baf9eed is superseded. Issue #16 remains open until renewed semantic review and approval are recorded for the amended head. PR #17 records this as a machine-materialization prerequisite and does not absorb the authorization change.

What is next: read the renewed PR #11 review before closing issue #16 or approving PR #17.

[samovers]

Completed by the bounded authorization amendment at 5974bb916ac8a2c5a6230facbb9836f639c754c3 on draft PR #11.

The current-head review found no semantic blockers, no scope drift, and no new over-design. Renewed head-specific steward semantic approval is recorded on PR #11, superseding the prior approval at baf9eed06c8db4b80d27355d7c05678e966f0eef.

The amendment remains inside canonical authorization law and decision-evidence governance: only REVIEW_ACCEPT and REVIEW_REJECT_OR_CONTEST gain the exact case-eligible target policy; REVIEW_SUPERSEDE, REVIEW_REQUEST, and unrelated actions remain unchanged. No active law, schema, runtime, currentness, or OFARM2 implementation changed.

PR #17's description is now pinned to this exact approved PR #11 head. Its ReviewDecision result mapping, companion-consequence composition, event/commit classification, postconditions, and validation evidence remain a separate protected-effect trust boundary.

What is next: continue semantic re-review of PR #17 without reopening the authorization-law boundary.