An independent spec-quality review (spec-review) found real drift and one real
gap, but also overstated FR-9.2 as an unenforced 'discipline' when three of its
four prohibitions are already mechanical (filing-plan only files verdict=='file',
requires --existing so a failed marker search can't silently duplicate, and
stability-classify rewrites rather than re-asks). Only 'what the analyst writes
into the judgments JSON' is genuinely unchecked — narrowed the claim to that.
The review also asserted an obligation — 'a run that leans on a recalled
conclusion must say so in the summary' — that didn't exist in any procedure.
Rather than strip a good idea, implemented it: skills/offload-audit/SKILL.md §7
and agents/offload-analyst.md §5 now require exactly that disclosure.
Same class of error, caught independently: FR-7.3's new stability/tracker-
separation clause describes what the analyst's spoken report can do, not what
the rendered wiki page does — snapshot_candidate carries no stability field, and
findings from stability-classify never enter the snapshot. Documented the gap
and its mechanical cause (widening the snapshot schema, not the renderer) rather
than leaving the spec's claim wrong.
FR-6.5, the FR-9.3 wing/room table, and the Q1/Q3 resolutions the review added
were checked against the shipped code and are accurate; left unchanged.
Suite: 159 assertions, exit 0.
Oleks
f52bb79ea5