Elnor Repo Reader

# Stage 5R2 + Stage 5R2b Regression Review Prompt

**Purpose:** Short regression check after the Stage 5R2 stabilization patch AND the Stage 5R2b audit-gap fold-ins. NOT a fresh broad review. The two questions this review answers are: (a) did Stage 5R2 close the synthesis §9 exit-check items cleanly? (b) are the Stage 5R2b audit-gap fold-ins sound? — so Stage 6 slice charters can begin.

**Stage 5R2b context:** After Stage 5R2 landed, Will challenged: "you listed 12 must-fix items, but you shouldn't only do must fixes. It should be any and all fixes. Audit your assessment against the reviews to make sure you properly and completely captured everything." The audit surfaced 22 items the synthesis did NOT roll up; Will authorized "fix all this" + explicit confirmation on bitemporal axes inclusion. The 22 items are now applied as Stage 5R2b and folded into this regression review.

## What you are reviewing

The Stage 5R2 patches landed in the following files (this is what changed since the round-2 red-team review):

1. **Plan file** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Current Flattening Plan/Flatten_and_Unify_Plan_V2_1c.md` (new §12.4-bis added between §12.4 and §12.5 for the DOC87 slice; §12.5 E9 description rescoped per Patch B6 / ADQ-221)

2. **OP-A** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Execution Ledger/OP-A Disposition/OP_A_Candidate_Disposition.md` (OPA-001/004/005/011/012 rewritten; OPA-031–034 added)

3. **Owner Map** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/DOC80 Target Baseline/Owner Map/DOC80_Owner_Map.md` (6 compound rows split; 2 placeholder rows resolved; DAMS-as-owner reframed; DOC8 runtime language purged; EC marked partial/moving; §11 reconciliation note added)

4. **Import Graph** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/DOC80 Target Baseline/Import Graph/DOC80_Import_Graph.md` (§2 restructured into 4 edge-kind tables; §5.6 acyclicity proof restated)

5. **Retired Names** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/DOC80 Target Baseline/Retired Names/DOC80_Retired_Names.md` (SM-202 row corrected)

6. **Supersession Matrix** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Supersession Matrix/Supersession_Matrix.md` (SM-202 row corrected from ABC §7.8 source)

7. **Conflict Register** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Execution Ledger/Conflict Register/Conflict_Disagreement_Register.md` (DR-006 re-opened with corrected resolution + lesson; DR-003/004 closed; DR-005 disposition recorded)

8. **ADQ register** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Execution Ledger/Architect Decision Queue/Architect_Decision_Queue.md` (ADQ-222 opened — network/sharing forward-compatibility)

9. **Skeletal Baseline** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/DOC80 Target Baseline/Skeletal Spec/DOC80_Skeletal_Target_Baseline.md` (§18 phase order corrected; DOC85 §5 language tightened; new §10 with 19 Stage 5R2 additions)

10. **Patch summary** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Execution Ledger/Stage_5R2_Patch_Summary.md` (now includes the Stage 5R2b addendum section at the end with the 22 audit-gap items + cascade detail)
11. **Self-audit** — `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Execution Ledger/Stage_5R2_Self_Audit.md` (now includes Stage 5R2b confirmation)

**Stage 5R2b additional changes beyond the Stage 5R2 set above:**

- **Skeletal Baseline §11.1–§11.13** added (recovery/replay seam, consistency model, EpisodePolicyEpoch re-gate, invariant-enforcement-point naming, DOC15/DOC26 seam checks, SourceBoundSynthesisAdapter convergence, bitemporal axes on Assertion, monotonicity laws, SemanticProjection narrowing, renames table, DOC85 two-phase, Library ADQ-202 gating).
- **Owner Map** — renames applied (`AlternativeExtractionRouting`, `SourceBoundSynthesisAdapter`); SemanticProjectionContract at §8 DOC80 core; 4 owner-specific narrowed projection rows; new §12 Stage 5R2b reconciliation note; "Six-step §7.7" → "12-step (Steps 0–11) §7.7" correction.
- **Retired Names** — 2 rename-only lineage entries; Premise alias_expiry cross-ref; AssertionCandidateDisposition lineage citation updated to `AlternativeExtractionRouting`; new §6 Stage 5R2b summary.
- **Import Graph** — renames cascaded; §5.1 footnote on supersession-matrix coverage gaps; §5.2 note on 2 rename-only retired-name entries.
- **Conflict Register** — DR-007 + DR-008 added (matrix-row gap entries for `AlternativeExtractionRouting` and `AssertionCandidateEmission` mirroring DR-002 pattern).
- **OP-A** — OPA-035 added (SourceBoundSynthesisAdapter convergence obligation).
- **ADQ register** — ADQ-219 text updated with rename + OPA-035 cross-ref.
- **Master Ledger + RUN_STATE** — Stage 5R2b row added to history; counts updated.

The full Stage 5R2 + Stage 5R2b work package is described in the patch summary (Stage 5R2 sections + Stage 5R2b addendum) and self-audit.

## What you are NOT reviewing

- Do **NOT** re-litigate D-SEED-1 (DOC80 = spec family), D-SEED-2 (DOC80 = real owner doc), the 41 resolved Stage 4 ADQs, ADQ-220 (DOC87 creation), ADQ-221 (BDSM partial / DOC8 capability-mining only), the lockstep mapping (E1+E2→DOC81, E3+E4→DOC82, E7+E8→DOC84), or the 8-member decomposition.
- Do **NOT** re-litigate DOC88 (declined per architect adjudication — degradation is the privileged-clawback default; legal hold is a freeze on existing deletion paths, not new machinery).
- Do **NOT** propose schema bodies for `MemoryMutationEnvelope`, `MemoryProvenanceGraph`, `PublishedViewEnvelope`, etc. — those are Stage 7 work.
- Do **NOT** propose redrawing family boundaries.
- Do **NOT** propose restoring the retired 11-value `AssertionCandidateDisposition` enum.
- Do **NOT** propose relocating `AssertionCandidateDisposition` to DOC82 (the seam is now explicit; the enum stays at DOC83).

## The two questions

### Question A: Does Stage 5R2 close the synthesis §9 exit-check items cleanly?

The exit-check items (from synthesis §9, restated):

A1. Is OP-A staleness resolved? (OPA-001/004/005/011/012 reconciled against the 8-member Owner Map?)
A2. Are Owner Map one-owner violations resolved? (No `+` or non-doc owner cells; no placeholder strings?)
A3. Is import-graph edge-kind ambiguity resolved? (DOC82↔DOC83 phantom cycle dissolved? DOC87 edge directions consistent owner→consumer in `schema_import`?)
A4. Is the DOC83 → DOC87 ordering resolved? (`TopicIdentityContract` stub requirement landed before DOC83 drafting?)
A5. Is the DOC8 / DOC85 language reconciled? (No "DOC8 runtime owner" anywhere?)
A6. Is the DOC82↔DOC83 disposition/resolution seam stated explicitly? (Without relocating the enum?)
A7. Is SM-202 / DR-006 corrected? (Actual ABC §7.8 values used? DR-006 re-opened in the Conflict Register?)
A8. Are VersionedClaim and WorkSession resolved or charter-gated? (DR-003 closed; DR-005 disposition recorded?)
A9. Is the EC seam named? (`partial / moving` + `ECSeamContract`?)
A10. Is the cross-artifact drift reconciled? (Plan file DOC87 amendment landed? ADQ-221 status consistent everywhere?)
A11. Is the network/sharing ADQ open? (ADQ-222 in the register?)
A12. Are the DOC80-core non-goal + manual-deletion sentences present? (Skeletal §10.1 + §10.2?)
A13. Is the DOC81 `LegalHoldState` flag + invariant in place? (Skeletal §10.3 + OPA-033?)

### Question B: Are the Stage 5R2b audit-gap fold-ins sound?

B1. **Renames** — Are `NonAssertionExtractionOutcome` → `AlternativeExtractionRouting` and `SourceBoundSynthesisProjection` → `SourceBoundSynthesisAdapter` applied consistently across Owner Map / Import Graph / OP-A / ADQ-219 / Retired Names lineage-only entries? Are the new names semantically clearer (routing vs outcome; adapter vs projection)?
B2. **SemanticProjection narrowing** — Is the catch-all `SemanticProjection` replaced by `SemanticProjectionContract` (DOC80 core umbrella) + 4 owner-specific narrowed projections (Delivery → DOC84, UI → DOC86, Organization → DOC87, Knowledge → DOC82)? Does `SourceBoundSynthesisAdapter` correctly classify under `KnowledgeProjection`?
B3. **ABC §7.7 numbering correction** — Is "Six-step" replaced by "12-step (Steps 0–11)" everywhere it appeared (skeletal §1.6 + Owner Map row + §3.3 senior-scoping note)?
B4. **§11 architectural notes** — Are §11.1–§11.13 in the skeletal baseline coherent and non-contradictory with the rest of the family? Specifically: §11.8 bitemporal axes on Assertion (`valid_time` + `transaction_time` — Will explicitly approved); §11.9 monotonicity laws (membership, policy, source revocation, learning); §11.1 recovery/replay seam; §11.2 consistency model; §11.3 `EpisodePolicyEpoch` re-gate; §11.4 invariant-enforcement-point naming table; §11.5/§11.6 DOC15/DOC26 seam checks; §11.7 SourceBoundSynthesisAdapter convergence obligation; §11.12 DOC85 two-phase charter; §11.13 Library ADQ-202 gating.
B5. **OPA-035** — Does the SourceBoundSynthesisAdapter convergence obligation correctly state that permanent unblessed wrapper activation is a `code_smell` (the adapter is a transition seam, not a destination)? Is the cross-ref to ADQ-219 + Import Graph §5.1 consistent?
B6. **DR-007 + DR-008** — Are the matrix-row gap entries for `AlternativeExtractionRouting` and `AssertionCandidateEmission` correctly mirroring the DR-002 pattern (resolved with artifact pointers; matrix-row addition deferred to next authorized matrix update)?
B7. **Premise alias_expiry cross-ref** — Does the Retired Names row 20 now cross-ref §3 expiry table for owner-of-record and expiry condition?
B8. **Import Graph §5.1 footnote** — Does the supersession-matrix coverage-gap table cover `LibrarySourceBinding` / `CorpusIndex` / `SourceCollection` / `VersionedClaim` lineage table / `AssertionCandidateEmission` / `AlternativeExtractionRouting`? Is the deferred lint `supersession.import_graph_object_without_matrix_row` named?
B9. **No new architectural reversal** — Do the Stage 5R2b items NOT change the 8-member family, the lockstep mapping, ADQ-220/221/222 resolutions, the ABC §7.8 enum, or any other architect adjudication?

## Format for your reply

For each exit-check item above (A1–A13 and B1–B9), return ONE LINE:

```
[A or B]N. [✅ closed | ⚠️ partially closed | ❌ NOT closed] <one-sentence note if needed>
```

If you find a `❌` or `⚠️`, name the exact artifact + line/section and the residual gap. **If everything returns ✅, Stage 6 charters may begin.**

If you have additional concerns beyond the exit-check items, add a final section:

```
## Concerns beyond the exit check
- <if any — but be disciplined; this is regression check, not fresh review>
```

## Where Will saves your reply

`Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Reviews/Red Team Responses/Stage_5R2_Regression_Review_Response.md`

(or per-reviewer subfolder if Will routes to multiple reviewers).

## Reference

- Synthesis: `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Reviews/Red Team Responses/DOC80_Stage_5R_Red_Team_Reviews_and_Synthesis.md` §9 exit check
- Patch summary: `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Execution Ledger/Stage_5R2_Patch_Summary.md`
- Self-audit: `Memory Rebuild Docs/Flattening/Execution Ledger/Stage_5R2_Self_Audit.md`