From 35e566882e767c1b78b36d696166a70e68ad53ab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Polichinl Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 17:09:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs(register):=20C-112=20=E2=80=94=20the=20swe?= =?UTF-8?q?ep=20was=20done,=20and=20the=20pin=20gap=20recurred=20in=2048?= =?UTF-8?q?=20hours?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Two updates to the inbound-visibility entry, both measured. The pin half: views-models moved both launchers 1.1.0 -> 1.1.1 on 2026-08-24, closing views-models#403 and the C-99 exposure this entry was written about. 1.2.0 published two days later and both launchers are behind again; views-models#439 asks for the same move a second time. The eight-day lag was not an incident, it is the steady state. Nothing about the first fix made the second lag less likely. The issue half: all 66 open issues org-wide naming this repository were read and triaged (down from 84 on 2026-08-21). Run because a /falsify audit had sampled eight and stated the limit rather than claiming the sweep was clean. Nothing is blocked by this repository that was not already known. The live asks are ours-to-them, not the reverse, and the commitment made on views-crafdapi#55 was honoured — the source-scraping check was replaced by one that reads the public registry. What the sweep found that no mechanism would have: #123 and views-datafactory#341 are the same decision, filed from both sides on 2026-07-20, owned by nobody for 37 days. Not a block — a block has an owner and a queue position. Recorded on #123. That argues for repeating the sweep rather than mechanising it, which is the opposite of what this entry previously implied. Still no mechanism proposed; the C-86 trade is unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) --- reports/technical_risk_register.md | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/reports/technical_risk_register.md b/reports/technical_risk_register.md index b1d07e5..b787d86 100644 --- a/reports/technical_risk_register.md +++ b/reports/technical_risk_register.md @@ -1341,6 +1341,18 @@ At the same time, `main` carries **29 commits since 1.1.1** — every guard from **The wider observation, recorded once so it is not rediscovered.** Eighty-four open issues across the organisation mention `views-postprocessing`; this repository tracks none of them and had never been swept. Most are informational, several were filed *by* this seat, and a few carry live asks (views-faoapi#390, views-crafdapi#55, views-models#362). No mechanism is proposed for that either — but a sweep belongs in the next repo-assimilation rather than being found by accident at the end of a sprint. +**2026-08-26 — the sweep was done, and the pin gap recurred within 48 hours of closing.** + +The version half first. views-models moved both launchers **1.1.0 → 1.1.1** on 2026-08-24 (their `d0c6969`), closing views-models#403 and the C-99 exposure this entry was written about. **1.2.0 was published two days later, and both launchers are behind again** — views-models#439 now asks for the same move a second time. That sharpens the finding: the eight-day lag was not an incident, it is the **steady state** of a system whose only signal to a consumer is an integer they must notice unaided. Nothing about the first fix made the second lag less likely. + +The issue half was executed rather than deferred. **All 66 open issues across the organisation naming this repository were read and triaged on 2026-08-26** (down from 84 on 2026-08-21, without deliberate effort here). Prompted by a `/falsify` audit that had sampled eight and declared the limit rather than claiming the sweep was clean. + +**Result: nothing is blocked by this repository that was not already known.** The live asks named above are unchanged in shape — views-faoapi#390 and views-crafdapi#55 are both *ours to them* (C-92; they owe a test driving their real query-construction path), and views-models#362 is trigger-gated on an ADR-013 amendment that is not adopted. views-pipeline-core#488 tracks **their** blocking pin, not ours to move. The commitment this repository made on views-crafdapi#55 — *"we are deleting our check"* — was honoured: `tests/test_product.py::test_the_declared_consumer_name_matches_the_registry` reads the public registry instead of scraping a sibling's source. + +**One thing the sweep found that no mechanism would have.** views-postprocessing#123 and views-datafactory#341 are the **same decision**, filed from both sides on 2026-07-20, and **neither names an owner** — 37 days. That is not a block, which is exactly why nothing surfaced it: a block has an owner and a queue position, and this has neither. Recorded on #123. It argues the sweep's value is not the asks it confirms but the *unowned* items it is the only way to see — which in turn argues for repeating the sweep rather than mechanising it. + +Still no mechanism proposed, and the trade named above is unchanged: a pin check would add a fifth repository whose `main` can redden this build (**C-86**, no bypass actors). What has changed is the evidence — one recurrence, and one unowned cross-repo decision found only by hand. + Cross-refs: **C-111** (the outbound half), **C-99** (the defect production is still running), **C-86** (the cost of adding another sibling to CI), **C-81** (what actually gates `main`), views-models#403. ## Disagreements