Version. 0.3
Supersedes. v0.1 at record c1a5908, which stands as a sibling, unaltered.
On the missing v0.2. v0.2 was drafted and never filed — the executing session halted at pre-flight and nothing was copied or committed. The record therefore holds v0.1 and v0.3 with no v0.2 between them. That gap is deliberate, not a lost document. Recorded here so a future reader does not hunt for it.
Changes from v0.1. One defect, in §2's discipline clause, in two places. v0.1's opening said the clause "has now caught five drafting-session imprecisions in one day" and enumerated five; the tally is four — two list items were the same imprecision, reported once and corrected once. v0.1's item 3 then referred to "one of the five imprecisions." Both are gone: the opening carries the rule instead of a count, and item 3 names the instance directly, which is what the clause's own item 4 asks for. v0.2 corrected only the first of the two, and its changes-line claimed the count was removed while it still stood twelve lines below — the reason it was halted rather than filed. Nothing else changed; the two questions, the fences and the reporting instruction are byte-identical to v0.1.
Date. 2026-07-31
Author. Claude.ai (drafting session). Operator: Marvin Percival.
Executed by. Claude Code on DUNIN7-M4, one Operator Layer session.
Target. /Users/dunin7/loomworks at main 99f7f64.
Charter. standing-notes/dunin7-standing-authorization-charter-v0_1. This is an R-5 inspection run.
Status. Read-only. Establishes ground for change request A (build-list item B-5, the Manifestation screen). Produces no code change and no change request.
What this closes. scoping-notes/loomworks-completion-scoping-note-v0_2 §6 names three Step 0 items for change request A. Item 1 — W-2, the uncallable commit route — is resolved and recorded at inspection-briefs/loomworks-inspection-corrections-note-v0_1 C-1. Items 2 and 3 are this brief. Item 3 arrives already narrowed by direct reads recorded in §4 below.
Companion to. inspection-briefs/loomworks-b29-b27-b5-engine-inspection-findings-v0_1 (the engine side of the same change request — §4 of that document establishes what the engine returns).
Read-only. No fixes, no branches, no commits, no stashes, no dependency installs, no npm install.
No dev server, no build, no test run. All three would be reasonable and none is needed; every question here is decidable from source. If a question turns out to need a run, report it as unread rather than running.
No engine, no database, no perimeter call. The engine belongs to CR-2026-159 for its duration. playground_dev is the live production database.
Working tree. Confirm state before starting and report anything unstaged. Do not clean it.
State only what you have read back. Same clause as the engine brief. It has caught every drafting-session imprecision so far, and the pattern in them is worth naming for the session that reads this: none was an error of analysis. Each was a specific added for weight rather than because the work needed it — a line number never read, a commit gestured at rather than looked up, a source characterised from memory, a count of anchors where the anchors were already listed. The test: no number, identifier or characterisation in prose unless it is itself the finding.
unread where a question cannot be settled inside the fences. Do not close the gap with a plausible reading.
Why. The completion scoping note commits to a typed state value that cannot be constructed without a read having occurred — unloaded / loading / failed / empty / populated, with the last two both carrying the read that produced them. The note is explicit that this is a posture and that its exact form is grounded at Step 0 against the real components. This question is that grounding.
Read, in src/app/operator/engagement/[engagement_address]/:
3.1 MemoryRoom.tsx. Its full data-fetching path. Establish: what it fetches and from where; what distinct states it models today; whether loaded-and-empty, not-yet-loaded and failed-to-load are distinguishable in its current shape or collapse into one rendering; how refreshNonce propagates a refetch; whether any state is derived from client-side state rather than from a completed read.
3.2 RenderingRoom.tsx. The same questions. It is the second live room and the note treats the two together as the pattern the contract must fit.
3.3 The shared fetching layer. Whether these two rooms fetch through a common hook, a shared client, or independently. If there is a shared layer, that is where the typed contract most plausibly lands, and its current shape decides whether the contract is an addition or a replacement. Name the file.
3.4 The proxy routes. Which Operator Layer routes proxy to the engine for room data, and whether any Manifestation route is proxied today. The engine side is established: four Manifestation routes exist, and GET /engagements/{eid}/memory-status returns both the derivation version and the source's current version in one call. Establish whether the Operator Layer reaches either.
3.5 EmptyRoom and its strings. RoomView.tsx renders EmptyRoom with SURFACE.composeEmpty / SURFACE.composeEmptyHint for Manifestation and SURFACE.shapeEmpty / SURFACE.shapeEmptyHint for Shaping. Read the actual string values in src/lib/strings.ts.
This is face 2 of the governing rule in its most concrete form. The dispatcher's own comment says these rooms "show an honest empty state rather than fake cards" — honest about there being no surface path. But the walk audit recorded the user-visible string as a claim about the data ("Nothing organized into a picture yet", on an engagement that had derived one that morning). Establish which the strings actually assert, and report them verbatim. The gap between an honest statement about the surface and a false statement about the record is the whole of face 2.
This item arrives largely settled, and the settlement removes an Operator decision rather than creating one. The completion scoping note raised the wall as a possible conflict with the seed's plain-terms discipline, to be resolved by the Operator if the wall proved deliberate at the level of the methodology nouns.
It is not. Two reads by the drafting session, both to be re-verified:
src/lib/room-labels.ts, header comment: the four names are "operator-surface ROOM-NAME LABELS (the core concept the Operator learns), NOT engine wire shorthand," and they live in one file "so the vocabulary-wall can allow these two label words here while still forbidding the engine wire code-tokens everywhere — including here." ROOMS carries label: "Manifestation" and label: "Shaping" explicitly.src/app/operator/engagement/[engagement_address]/RoomView.tsx, header comment: it switches on the "wall-safe content discriminator… (never the forbidden room-key literals)."Reading. The wall forbids engine wire code-tokens. The methodology nouns are deliberately preserved as operator-facing labels in a single sanctioned module, which is what the seed requires. The wall and the seed agree. No Operator ruling is needed.
What remains to verify, and it is the part a comment cannot settle:
4.1 The enforcement mechanism. Find it — a lint rule, a test, a CI check, a script. Name the file. Establish what it actually forbids, what it allows, and whether room-labels.ts is exempted by path or by some other means.
4.2 Does enforcement match intent? A comment describes what the author meant; the mechanism decides what happens. If the mechanism forbids the literal strings manifestation / shaping anywhere outside the exempt module, then a new Manifestation room component cannot carry the noun in a variable name, a test id, or a comment — which shapes how B-5 is written even though it creates no seed conflict. This is the practical output of this question.
4.3 The projectId / engagement displacement. RoomView.tsx takes a projectId prop and passes it to both live rooms. The seed's noun is engagement; walk-audit W-37 recorded project displacing engagement five times across the create stage. Size it, do not fix it: how many component props, route params, and user-visible strings carry project where the seed's noun is engagement, and are the user-visible ones separable from the internal ones. This belongs to change request D, not to B-5 — it is sized here because the file is open.
project/engagement displacement. Sized only, for change request D.One findings document. Markdown primary, technical consumer.
Path. inspection-briefs/loomworks-operator-layer-cr-a-step-0-findings-v0_1.md in loomworks-record. Drop a copy in ~/Downloads.
Structure: environment (repo SHA, working-tree state, and an explicit statement that no server, build, test, engine, database or perimeter call was made) · question one, §3.1 to §3.5 in order, strings verbatim · question two, §4.1 to §4.3, including whether §4's two drafting-session reads verified · corrections preserved, in the same shape as the engine findings · unread, with what would settle each.
Filing. Charter R-1: commit and push on clean pre-flight. Re-verify the record HEAD immediately before writing.
Note on record state. At the time of drafting, loomworks-record carried one unpushed local commit (9c1766f, CR-2026-159 v0.3) held by a name-resolution failure on the host. Confirm origin is current before filing, and if that commit is still local, push it first rather than stacking on top of it.
Append the outcome to current-status/dunin7-status-brief at close, per charter §7.
DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks — Operator Layer inspection brief — change request A Step 0 — v0.3 — 2026-07-31 Read-only. Two questions, one of them already narrowed. One Operator decision removed rather than raised.