fix(product): the upload interlock named a gate that no longer gates - #301
Merged
Polichinel merged 1 commit intoAug 26, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Both products documented a precondition on first live enablement, and both
had been satisfied:
unfao "faoapi's C-161 closure notice" met 2026-07-20; the residual
it left open shipped in faoapi
v1.5.4 on 2026-08-21
crafd "the views-crafdapi selection guard met 2026-08-12, views-crafdapi#53;
deployed in production" their production serves real data
Neither named the gate that actually holds: views-appwrite#171, the
non-production Appwrite decision, without which the upload path cannot be
rehearsed against a real store at all (#18).
This is not cosmetic staleness. product.py is the single source of truth for
this switch, so a reader asking why nothing uploads got a wrong answer — in
both partners, pointing at two different innocent repositories. It is the
mechanism by which views-faoapi spent a month believing the hold was on their
side before asking (#294, 2026-08-22).
Found by /falsify, 2026-08-26. Its two stubs are disposed of in the same
change rather than carried:
S5 DISCHARGED — this fix is what it asked for.
S6 WITHDRAWN — it asserted the correction-procedure banner disappears, which
cannot happen until FAO answers Note 07 Decision B.1. A test that can only
go green on an external party's reply is decoration (C-102), and #292
tracks the item better. Withdrawing it also corrects the audit: the nine
mislabelled cells WERE disclosed to FAO as Note 07 Topic G on 2026-08-21,
and the audit reported that disclosure as missing.
Kept short deliberately. The first draft ran to twenty lines and put
views-postprocessing/{unfao,crafd} over the 700-line partner budget that
test_doc_accuracy enforces. The budget was right and the prose was not; the
reasoning that did not fit lives in this message and on #294.
Noted, not fixed: crafd/ now sits at 699/700. The budget exists to notice
exactly that, and the next line added there will fail. Out of scope here.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Story 1 of the sprint closing the 2026-08-26
/falsifyfindings.The finding
product.pyis the single source of truth for the §11.4 upload interlock. Each partner named a precondition on first live enablement. Both were already satisfied:unfaocrafdNeither named the gate that holds — views-appwrite#171, without which the upload path cannot be rehearsed against a real store (#18).
A reader asking why does nothing upload? got a wrong answer in both partners, pointing at two different innocent repositories. That is how views-faoapi spent a month believing the hold was theirs (#294).
Stub disposal, in the same change
On length
My first draft blew the 700-line partner budget
test_doc_accuracyenforces. The budget was right; the prose wasn't. What didn't fit is in the commit message and will go on #294.Noted, not fixed:
crafd/is now at 699/700. The budget exists to notice that, and the next line added there fails. Out of scope for this PR.Verification
507 passed, 3 skipped, 40 xfailed.
test_falsification_release_readiness: 3 xfailed (S1, S3, S4), no XPASS. ruff clean.🤖 Generated with Claude Code