DUNIN7 — status brief — v0.31

Version. 0.31 Date. 2026-08-05 Charter. standing-notes/dunin7-standing-authorization-charter-v0_1. Author. Claude Code (execution session). Operator: Marvin Percival. Supersedes. v0.30 at record 2b77e52. All earlier versions stand as siblings. Changes from v0.30. B-8 Step 0 inspection run and CLOSED as a read-only inspection. No code changed in either target repository.

1. What ran

inspection-briefs/loomworks-b8-step-0-inspection-brief-v0_1.md, read-only inspection session, grounded in inspection-briefs/loomworks-b6-step-0-findings-v0_1.md and inspection-briefs/loomworks-b11-step-0-findings-v0_1.md. Two repositories, both read-only: loomworks-engine at main bd60cec and loomworks at main 1245f1c — both confirmed unmoved and clean before and after the session.

2. What was found

Findings filed at inspection-briefs/loomworks-b8-step-0-findings-v0_1.md.

• Question one, answered first. No live code path exists from /operator/converse to any state-changing operation on a vaguely-worded request — classification collapses low-confidence/unmatched intents to general_conversation, and route_intent returns before any write-capable handler runs. Specifically, and checked first per the brief's instruction: the Companion's conversation path cannot reach the Shaping room's confirm operation that enqueues render production. The only code path that reaches that confirm is a structurally separate REST route (POST /operator/inbox/{item_id}/respond), never called from chat, classifier, or router. The build list's standing question closes in the negative — the wiring for the sharpest case was never built, which is a different finding than the wiring being safe.
• What the Companion currently knows. Full read/write access to Memory. No reachable read or write path into Manifestation at all. Aggregate-count-only read into Shaping (never content); no working write (delegation layer dead-ends — no dispatcher registered for produce_specification or initiate_render). Narrow produced-artifact-list read plus aggregate counts for Rendering; no working write, same dispatcher gap. The persona prompt actively instructs the model not to use the vocabulary naming three of the four rooms — a knowledge gap distinct from, and prior to, the action gap.
• What teaching it three rooms would mean. For Manifestation, the existing HTTP reads/writes would only need wiring into an intent, mirroring the pattern Memory already uses. For Shaping, most reads are wiring; confirm itself is named in the brief as inherently surface-only — a control that shows what it will produce before it is pressed. For Rendering, listing is wiring; the dispatcher gap means render creation has no code to call even once authorized.
• What must not break. The conversation path sits behind one membership check at the top of operator_converse, and every reachable room-read handler trusts that single gate rather than re-checking — matching the "fenced at the endpoint, once" rule, with one documented exception (recall_personal/remember_about_me/forget_about_me scope to the caller's own account, not attacker-suppliable, but genuinely outside the named gate). The room-state contract holds by construction on this path: a read failure propagates as an unhandled exception, never as a fabricated "empty" reply. The sources/citations channel is hard-coupled to one literal data key populated by exactly one intent — an answer about the other rooms would carry no sources unless separately wired in.

No corrections needed this session — both repositories confirmed unmoved and clean throughout; no database touched; no model call made.

3. What did not run

No design, no options, no recommendation — per the brief's discipline clause. No fixes, no branches, no commits to either target repository, no dependency changes. No dev server, no perimeter call. No model call. playground_dev/playground_test untouched. A handful of items recorded as unread/unrun in the findings document's closing section, each named with what would need reading to close it.

4. Charter compliance

R-5 — inspection run, no change request opened. Discipline clause items 1-6 held throughout: every claim in the findings carries a file:line or command citation; nothing was closed with a plausible reading; what the code enforces was stated separately from what the prompt asks for at every guard described.

5. Decision queue

None opened. Per the brief's header, this establishes ground for a scoping note or a change request depending on what §3 found — §3 found the sharpest-case gap does not exist in code today, so the natural next step is a scoping note on what Manifestation/Shaping/Rendering access would need to be built deliberately, not a defect repair. Not started.

DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida DUNIN7 — status brief — v0.31 — 2026-08-05 The wiring for the sharpest case was never built — which is a different finding than the wiring being safe.