Loomworks — the completion scoping note — v0.2

Version. 0.2 Date. 2026-07-31 Author. Claude.ai. Operator: Marvin Percival. Status. The ordered plan for build-list items B-5 through B-9. Build-list item B-4; drafted under the charter's autonomous regime. Evidence base. standing-notes/dunin7-build-list-v0_8; inspection-briefs/loomworks-walk-audit-operator-pass-findings-v0_1; inspection-briefs/loomworks-walk-audit-report-v0_1; inspection-briefs/loomworks-b25-sizing-sweeps-findings-v0_1; current-status/current-status-manifest-v0_76 with its amendment; candidate-seeds/loomworks/loomworks-candidate-seed-v0_12. Plus three read-only inspections run 2026-07-30 and 2026-07-31, recorded in §3 and §9. Changes from v0.1 (filed at record 7f49eba; v0.1 stands as a sibling, unaltered). The B-25 sizing sweeps ran and returned eleven sites rather than three, with one of the original three reclassified out of B-25 entirely and into this arc's engine rider. A class neither sweep anticipated — eighty-three sites fabricating one provenance field — became its own build-list item, B-29. Four Operator rulings settled 2026-07-31. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 revised; sections 1, 2, 7 and 8 carried forward unchanged. Date note. Every document in the original evidence base is dated 2026-07-30. This note is the first of the arc carrying 2026-07-31. The gap is a day boundary inside one continuous working session, not a filing error.

1. What this note is

The walk audit of 2026-07-28/29 and the Operator's browser pass of 2026-07-30 between them produced forty-two numbered findings. This note does not answer them one at a time. It sets out what the completion arc is for, what governs it, in what order the work runs, and how anyone will know it is finished.

The finish line, restated from the build list: a firm's own document becomes a working engagement, information flows in, the summary view appears, a finished report comes out, a question gets a truthful answer with its sources shown, and an outsider can contribute without seeing anything else. Items B-5 through B-9 are the middle of that sentence — the second half of the pipeline, which today is reachable only through direct calls to the substrate.

What the audit found, in one line: the thread does not fray, it stops. Stage 1 — accumulating knowledge — is largely continuous through the Companion. Stages 2, 3 and 4 are continuous nowhere. Every step of the second half is a departure into a raw mechanism.

What the seed already commits. This arc builds nothing new. The seed's Rendering section states that every Render records what it was produced from — which Shape, which specialist, what configuration was in force, and which scopes' knowledge it composed — and that lineage is visible, across every scope it drew from. That sentence is B-9's authority. B-9 is not a new commitment; it is an unmet one. The Manifestation section's commitment that prior Manifestations are preserved but superseded is B-5's authority for the staleness marker. The constraint only show what is available governs every surface this arc touches.

2. The governing rule

A surface states only what it has read back.

The audit's findings are not eight broken screens. They are one defect wearing many faces, and the reason fixing them individually would miss the next one is that each fix would be a copy change, while the defect is structural: a surface collapses distinct conditions into one statement, and the statement is not derived from a read that could tell those conditions apart.

The rule has four faces. Each is testable, and each names the findings that are its evidence.

Face 1 — Read back what you wrote

A surface reporting a write states it only after re-reading the record.

W-21 is the evidence: "Foundation saved — make it official. Your reviewed foundation is saved on the new project." The screen renders entirely from client-side state, never re-reads what it wrote, and therefore cannot detect that the write it is reporting carried a fabricated author (W-17).

Face 2 — Distinguish absence from ignorance

Loaded-and-empty, not-yet-loaded, and failed-to-load are three conditions with three renderings, never one string covering all three.

This face carries the most weight. Its evidence is W-25 (a conversation pane showing "No conversation yet" and "Couldn't load earlier conversation" simultaneously, on an engagement with a full transcript); W-27 and W-9 (the Manifestation room reporting nothing organized on an engagement that derived one that morning); W-24 ("No unused codes remaining" where none were ever generated); W-20 (a production-mode diagnosis emitted for any 404, including person-not-found, on an engine running in development mode); W-23 ("Add a backup passkey" for a first passkey); W-41 (assertion numbering gaps with nothing accounting for them).

Six findings, one defect.

Face 3 — State currency, not just existence

Anything derived from Memory shows what it was derived from, and whether Memory has moved since.

Evidence: W-34 (two renders both reading "Produced · ready to view", one saying four branches where the settled record says five); W-14 (downstream-impact lists the chain and marks nothing stale); W-16 (the Manifestation hop of a provenance walk cannot be resolved at the version the Shape was built from); and E0005 in the live record, whose newest Manifestation is twenty-five versions stale with no surface saying so.

This face is where the seed's operator-authority over artifact state transitions constraint applies precisely: the surface signals staleness, it does not transition the artifact. Marking a render out of date is a signal; retiring it is the Operator's act.

Face 4 — Do not claim a capability you have not checked

A surface does not commit to an action before the authorization for that action has been resolved.

This face was added on 2026-07-31 and is the sharpest of the four. Faces 1 to 3 concern a surface asserting state it has not read. Face 4 concerns a surface asserting authority it has not checked, and unlike the others it promises the Operator an action rather than describing a condition.

Evidence: on 2026-07-30, holding zero delegations, the Companion answered a request for a Board brief with "I can do that… I can write a structural draft with placeholders where those numbers belong." On 2026-07-29, holding the same zero delegations, the same classified intent produced the mandated refusal. See §3 for the full disposition and §9 for the one question that remains open.

How the rule is enforced

Decision 2, settled: structural, not a review item. This project's standing principle is that correctness guarantees live in code, not prompts. A rule that depends on a reviewer noticing will produce the ninth face.

In the Operator Layer. Room surfaces consume a typed state value that cannot be constructed without a read having occurred. The shape this note commits to — the exact form is grounded at Step 0 against the real components, per the project's discipline of committing postures and deferring mechanisms:

unloaded — no read attempted.
loading — read in flight.
failed — read attempted and failed, carrying the reason.
empty — read completed, nothing found. Carries the time of the read and the source version it read at.
populated — read completed, carrying the data, the time of the read, the version it was derived from, and the current version of its source.

The load-bearing property is that empty and populated both carry the read that produced them. A component cannot render an empty-state string without holding a value that proves a read completed, so face 2 is enforced by construction rather than by discipline. Populated carrying both its derivation version and the current version makes face 3 computable rather than optional.

In the engine. Face 4 is not a frontend concern. Its enforcement is ordering: authorization resolves before any branch that produces language committing to an action. The specific location is named in §6 as CR-D's first Step 0 item.

In each change request. Every change request in this arc carries a state-inventory table: every condition the surface can be in, the read that distinguishes it, and the exact copy for each. The type is the enforcement; the table is the review artifact and the acceptance evidence.

3. Corrections preserved

The walk overturned earlier positions, and the drafting of this note overturned more. Superseded positions stand alongside their corrections, per the seed's corrections preserved, not smoothed.

From the browser pass, 2026-07-30

Prior position	Current position
W-5 — recall returns a superseded value in the wrong lifecycle state. A stale-value defect.	Revised, worse in kind. The answer is not wrong, it is unstable. The same question asked three times against unchanged data produced: correct with its correction noted; a false confession of fabrication; correct with its source cited. A consistently wrong answer can be located and fixed. One that occasionally disowns itself cannot be trusted even when right.
W-4 — no retract affordance exists.	Confirmed and worse. The verb is understood. It searches the held tray rather than the settled record, then reports that the Operator's record does not exist — about a note it cites correctly by that number two turns later.
W-12 / W-13 — renders are indistinguishable, both labelled `#1 — html_document`.	Partially struck. They are clearly distinguishable by name on the surface, each naming its producing specialist. The strike is on identity only. The download half stands, and currency remains unmarked (W-34).
Row 1.1 — the held-items array returned empty.	Struck. The tray populated immediately in the browser with no refresh.
Manifest v0.76 §5 — the `ask_about_past_input` carve-out is the strongest lead for the recall defect.	Overturned as the diagnosis. That path answered correctly twice, citing its source. The residue stands as a real gap — it genuinely was never brought under the truthful-by-construction discipline — but it is not the cause. Belongs to B-11, not to this arc.
Manifest v0.76 §5 — the surface-silence class: four instances, the substrate holds the truth and no surface reports it.	Renamed and widened. Silence is a subset. The class is unverified assertion — the surface does not read back what it claims — and it now stands at twelve or more instances, most of which are not silence but confident wrongness. The prior name is preserved; a manifest amendment is owed at the next bump (§10).

W-10 — its own row, because it moved three times

Position	Held when	Status
The Companion refuses to shape, and the remedy it offers does not work.	Walk audit, 2026-07-29	Original finding.
Struck as written. Asked for a Board brief it complied with no refusal and no delegation demand.	Browser pass findings v0.1, 2026-07-30	Withdrawn 2026-07-31. The strike was filed on the strength of a surface reporting a success it had not recorded — the exact class this arc exists to close.
Conditional, in three parts.	This note, 2026-07-31	Current.

The three parts, separately:

Refuses to shape — conditional. Three request_draft turns exist across the two days, not two. The refusal fired on exactly one: the request carrying a cleanly extractable shape type ("produce a new shape of the current Manifestation…"). Two vaguer requests — a retry, and "produce a new draft of the Board brief" — produced no refusal and no production, only clarifying questions. It refuses when it can tell what is being asked for, and does not when it cannot.
The remedy does not work — confirmed outright. Two independent reads. The Companion offers "you can draft specifications" as the grant phrase. The classifier files the sentence as a personal fact and writes a paraphrase into the field the grant extractor reads. The audit's transcript captures the loss in flight: "draft specifications" went in; "Can draft board briefs for this engagement." came out; the phrase-matcher found nothing; it filed as ordinary personal memory. That assertion is still sitting held in the walk-audit database, never committed, and would not authorize anything if it were, because the authorization query parses only delegation-typed records. The Companion tells the Operator the phrase, then paraphrases it before checking whether the Operator said it.
Vocabulary disclaim — confirmed. "'shape' and 'Manifestation' are terms I don't use", on the 07-29 retry and again in the browser pass as W-36.

From the sizing sweeps, 2026-07-31

Prior position	Current position
B-25 covers three sites.	Eleven. The fabricated-author construction appears three times in one file, not once — the walk audit found one of three. Five further routes stamp the wrong authentication path. The wrong-engagement write and the two-doors-two-names finding are both confirmed at their recorded lines.
`compositions.py:73` records a Companion-triggered composition as a contributor's work. Build list v0.7 named it as one of B-25's three record-write sites.	It is displayed as a contributor's, not recorded as one. The site sits inside the response shaper; the record keeps the true value and the projector writes it verbatim. The response schema admits only two kinds, so the relabel happens on the way out. The record is honest and the surface misreports it — which is this arc's subject, not B-25's. Moved to CR-B.
Where the build list and the manifest diverged on that site, no position was taken.	The manifest was right. v0.76 §5 filed it under the surface class as active wrongness rather than silence, which is exactly what it is. The build list called it a record write. Recorded because the two documents disagreed and one of them was correct.
The `wasGeneratedBy` fabrication gates B-9. (The sizing inspection's own section heading.)	It does not. The inspection's body states the conditional accurately — a walk that follows that field dead-ends — and the audit's proven five-hop walk does not touch it. What it does is place a fabricated value in every record, which any surface exposing the field would render as confidently as a true one. A design question for CR-E, not a dependency.

Corrections to positions taken during this note's own drafting

Recorded because the trajectory matters and because each was asserted to the Operator before it was withdrawn.

Prior position	Current position
The grant phrase is untested — nobody has shown it works or fails.	Withdrawn. It fails, and the audit's own transcript was the proof all along.
Delegation may not exist as real standing authority.	Withdrawn. It exists, as a committed assertion in the person's personal engagement carrying a delegation-typed content record. Checked per person and per engagement. Every account starts with zero.
The Operator's account was established and therefore already held authority; the audit's was minutes old.	Dead twice. Nothing in that path distinguishes account age, and the walk-audit database holds exactly one principal — the Operator ran as the synthetic account throughout.
The Operator may have committed the delegation without knowing.	Dead. No commit of that assertion exists in the event log; its only event is a single addition.
The Companion delivered prose the Operator read as a finished draft, and the record never saw it.	Withdrawn. Nothing was delivered. It offered two options and asked which the Operator preferred; the exchange stopped there unanswered.
The gate is composed rather than enforced — a language model talked past a denial.	Probably wrong, and not established. The likelier reading is that the request never reached the gate: the authorization check sits downstream of extracting what was asked for, so a request whose shape type cannot be extracted resolves on a different branch and is never checked. Unresolved; see §9.

4. The plan

Decision 3, settled: five build-list items do not map onto five change requests. The build-list numbering stands unchanged; this is the mapping beneath it.

Change requests are lettered here for reference. Numbers in the CR-2026-NNN sequence are assigned at drafting, continuing from the highest then present.

CR-A — the surface-state contract and the Manifestation screen · B-5

Establishes the typed state contract from §2 and lands the Manifestation room as its first consumer. The room shows the derived Manifestation, its version, what it was derived from, and whether Memory has moved since — face 3's first instance. It renders the three empty conditions distinctly — face 2. The contract lands with a real consumer rather than as a standalone abstraction, because a contract with no user is a guess.

Why first: it is the front of the queue on the build list, and it establishes what CR-C and CR-D consume. Manifest Entry 126 records that the registry defect and the placeholder rooms masked each other, and that building the real Manifestation surface would have removed the mask — which is why B-1 had to land first. It has, and it is verified working in the wild: engagement E0007, previously unable to derive at all, derived successfully on 2026-07-30.

CR-B — the engine-side rider

Three engine defects that feed the surfaces downstream. Different repository, different discipline, therefore its own change request.

W-35 — the render leaks its own markup into the finished artifact. The Board brief opens with a literal code fence and closes with one. The specialist's output includes it and nothing strips it before the client-facing document.
W-33 contributing cause — the Shape's title is set at production and returns empty after confirmation, while the render preserves it. This is why the Companion cannot find a render by the name the panel displays.
W-16 — no route retrieves a Manifestation at the version a Shape was built from. Assertions have this and it works correctly; Manifestations do not. Without it the provenance walk has a hop it cannot resolve.
The composition relabel (added at v0.2, ruling 3) — compositions.py:73 and :289. The response schema admits only two actor kinds, so a Companion-triggered composition is relabelled as a contributor's on the way out of the engine. The record is correct underneath. This is face 1 of the governing rule at the response boundary: a surface reporting something the record does not say. It arrived here from B-25, where it had been mis-filed as a record write.

Why here: may run in parallel with CR-A — different repository, no shared surface. Must complete before CR-D (which needs the title) and CR-E (which needs the version route).

CR-C — the Shaping screen and the Rendering completion · B-6 and B-7

Second and third consumers of CR-A's contract, together because they prove it generalises and because their state work is the same work.

Shaping room — real surface replacing the hardcoded placeholder. Shows the Shapes that exist, what Manifestation each was built from, and at which version.
Rendering — the download control, wired to the engine route that already works correctly and completely; and the currency marker distinguishing a current render from a superseded one.

What is deliberately not here: render naming. W-12/W-13's identity half is struck — they are already distinguishable and named on the surface.

CR-D — the Companion and the last three rooms · B-8

Intents for producing a Manifestation, producing a Shape, and producing a Render. Today the vocabulary has none, which is why Stages 2 to 4 are unreachable from a conversation.
Addressing — finding a render by the name the panel displays, and acting on a settled record by its number rather than only reading one (W-33 and W-4's confirmed half).
Vocabulary repair — decision 4, settled. W-36 and W-37: the Companion disowning the product's nouns, and project displacing engagement five times across the create stage.
Face 4 enforcement — authorization resolves before any branch that commits to an action.

Why the vocabulary is in this change request and not a cosmetic pass: it is an authorization surface. The exact lowercase word specification maps to one capability; every other word, including shape and brief, maps to a different one, so a delegation granted for one does not authorize the other. And vagueness about what is being asked for appears to decide whether authorization is checked at all. Teaching the Companion three rooms whose names it repudiates, on a path where the words select the permission, is self-defeating.

Depends on: CR-A and CR-C (surfaces to act on), CR-B (the title fix).

CR-E — the provenance walk · B-9

Click any statement in a finished report and walk backward to the person who said it: render to Shape, Shape to Manifestation at its pinned version, Manifestation to assertion at the version rendered, assertion to contributor.

The substrate already does this well. The audit's strongest single result was that the backward walk returns the text as it was rendered rather than as it reads today, which is exactly what a provenance walk is for. What is missing is a surface: the version-resolution route appears nowhere in the Operator Layer, and no surface exposes a single hop.

Depends on: CR-B (the version route), CR-A and CR-C (destinations for the hops), and B-25. See §5.

B-25 — the record writes that are not true

Already an item on the build list; not renumbered here. It runs in parallel from now, and it is the gate on CR-E. Sized 2026-07-31 at eleven sites, superseding the three-site framing this section carried at v0.1.

The eleven, in three groups:

Three fabricated authors — engagements.py:285, :347, :392. The same construction, three times in one file. At :285 the authenticated person is in scope and used two lines earlier, then discarded in favour of a generated value.
Five wrong authentication paths — two sites in me_create_engagement.py, two in seed_extraction.py, one in seed_commit_from_brief.py. All five are session-cookie routes stamping the bearer-token kind. memory/base.py:69-81 states that the two kinds exist precisely so the record carries which door the action came through; these five destroy that. Ruling 1: real findings, not acceptable shorthand.
Three confirmed originals — the wrong-engagement write at converse.py:690; the client-supplied agent identifier coalesced against a generated one at considerations.py:195; and W-6, the two doors that attribute the same person differently, confirmed and compounded by a hardcoded companion name at assertions.py:404.

Decision 5, carried from v0.1 and now confirmed by evidence: W-6 belongs here. The person identifier is identical across both doors; the kind and the readable name are not. CR-E terminates on the readable name.

Two open questions travel to B-25's own Step 0 rather than being settled here: whether an escalation recipient is an assertion about a party or a reference to one, and whether the seed-conversation Companion is person-bound.

B-29 — the provenance field fabricated everywhere

New at v0.2, ruling 2. Not part of B-25 and not part of this arc, recorded here because CR-E must know about it.

provenance.wasGeneratedBy means the memory event that produced this version. The append machinery mints its own event identifier and never back-patches the object, so every caller stamps an unrelated generated value: eighty-three sites across thirty-six files, none passing a real identifier. Three sites in persons/personal_engagement.py do it correctly, which is what proves the field means what its comment says.

Separated from B-25 because the shapes differ — eleven heterogeneous fixes across many files against one structural change at one seam — and because that seam touches every write path in the engine and deserves its own acceptance rather than delaying the eleven behind a much larger test surface.

Ruling 4: not a gate on CR-E. The proven five-hop walk does not follow this field. It becomes a Step 0 question for CR-E — does the provenance surface expose it — and if the answer is yes, CR-E either waits for B-29 or does not surface that hop.

5. Sequencing, and why B-9 cannot be scheduled by date

CR-A (B-5) ──────────────► CR-C (B-6, B-7) ──────► CR-D (B-8) ──────► CR-E (B-9)
                                                        ▲                  ▲
CR-B (engine rider) ────────────────────────────────────┘                  │
                                                                           │
B-25 sweeps ✔ done ──────► B-25 change request ────────────────────────────┘

B-29 (one seam, 83 sites) ── independent; informs CR-E, does not gate it

B-9 is now gated two deep, not three. The sizing sweeps ran on 2026-07-31 and returned eleven sites. B-25's change request repairs the authorship; only then can a walk over that authorship be built. The Operator's point at commissioning holds and is now quantified: nine of the eleven sites are invisible from every surface, so a provenance walk built today would demonstrate a lie convincingly and with no way for anyone to notice.

B-9 still has no date, but the unrun step at the head of its chain is gone. What remains is B-25's own drafting and build, which can start immediately.

B-29 sits outside the chain. It is independent of every change request here, and cheap relative to its apparent size — one seam heals all eighty-three. CR-E needs to know its state, not wait for it.

The parallel track is genuine. CR-B is a different repository from CR-A. B-25 is a different repository from CR-A and CR-C. Three fronts can move at once without collision, provided the record-writing discipline holds — every session re-verifies the repository head immediately before each write rather than trusting an earlier reading.

6. What each Step 0 must verify

Per the standing rule, every change request opens with a read-only inspection before any draft. This note names what each must establish. It does not run them.

CR-A 1. The status of W-2 — first item, load-bearing on acceptance. The audit found the terminal commit route for creation doors 1 and 2 uncallable: it returns a validation failure demanding a path parameter its own route does not declare, arriving through a dependency chain. The browser pass appears to have created an engagement through door 1 and amended its foundation, which suggests creation completed. The environments differ — the audit ran against the earlier engine, the browser pass against the current one — and Entry 126 mentions a create-from-conversation rider resolved by removal, which cannot be interpreted without reading that change request. The walk cannot run clean end to end while W-2 stands, and W-2 appears nowhere on the build list. Settle it here. 2. The real shape of the room components and their current data-fetching, so the state contract is grounded in the code rather than in this note's sketch. 3. The vocabulary wall. RoomView.tsx carries a header referring to forbidden room-key literals. The seed's plain-terms discipline protects Memory, Manifestation, Shaping and Rendering on operator-facing surfaces. One of the two gives. The likely reading is that the wall was meant for code-level room keys rather than the methodology nouns, and the Companion is over-applying it — but that is a guess, and the file settles it. Raised rather than resolved: if the wall is deliberate at the level of the methodology nouns, it conflicts with the seed and the Operator decides which moves.

CR-B 1. Where the specialist's output is written, and whether stripping the fence belongs at the specialist or at the render boundary. 2. Why the Shape's title is lost at confirmation, and whether the render's preserved copy is the fix or a symptom. 3. The existing version-resolution route for assertions, as the pattern the Manifestation route follows. 4. (added v0.2) The response schema's admitted actor kinds, and whether widening it to carry the companion kind has consumers downstream that would need to widen with it.

CR-C 1. What the Shaping room needs from the engine that the engine does not yet return. 2. The download route's existing behaviour and content types, confirming the surface work is a wire rather than a build. 3. W-3's status. A Markdown file advertised as supported, refused on response validation, and the contribution lost. Stage 1, so it precedes this change request's surfaces, and like W-2 it appears nowhere on the build list.

CR-D 1. First item: the routing order in the draft-request handler. Does the branch for an unextractable shape type resolve ahead of the authorization check? If so, a vaguely-worded request skips authorization entirely, and the repair is ordering. If not, the denial was reached and overridden, and the repair is structural and considerably more serious. Both repairs live in the same function; this note does not branch on the answer, but the change request must. 2. The grant-extraction path: whether the phrase-matcher runs on the classifier's paraphrase or on what was actually said, and whether a matched grant lands held rather than committed. Both are believed true and both are load-bearing. 3. The intent vocabulary in full, and where production intents for the three rooms would sit.

CR-E 1. B-25's disposition. The sizing is done — eleven sites, recorded in the sweep findings — so this is a state check on the change request, not a sizing question. 2. Which hops the engine can already resolve and which need routes. 3. (added v0.2) Does the provenance surface expose wasGeneratedBy? If it does, that hop renders a fabricated value with the same confidence as a true one, and CR-E either waits for B-29 or does not surface it. If the surface walks only the five hops the audit proved, B-29 is irrelevant here.

7. Acceptance

The walk runs clean end to end. Re-run the same seed-to-render walk with the same instrument and the same classification vocabulary, across both lanes. Two criteria, both required.

Criterion 1 — zero raw-mechanism departures across Stages 1 to 4. The walk's own instrument already separates two kinds: departures into a raw mechanism, and hops from the Companion into an Operator Layer surface. Today the count is eight, six of them raw. Target: zero raw. Companion-to-surface hops are counted and reported, not failed. The product is not committed to being conversation-only — a screen is a legitimate place to look at things. It is committed to not turning the Operator into a mechanic.

Criterion 2 — decision 6, as amended 2026-07-31. The Companion does not commit to an action before the authorization for it has been resolved, and any artifact it delivers resolves to a shape event in the record.

Why the amendment was needed. Criterion 1 alone would have passed the 2026-07-30 exchange. The Companion answered a draft request agreeably, produced correct and readable content grounded in the record, and no departure occurred. Nothing entered the pipeline. A walk can run clean on a conversation in which nothing happened, and without criterion 2 it would score CLEAN and prove nothing.

The first draft of criterion 2 read every artifact the Operator receives resolves to a shape event. That is insufficient on its own: in the observed exchange no artifact was claimed, so an artifact test finds nothing to fail. The claim of capability is the thing to catch, which is why the criterion carries both halves.

Preconditions on the gate. W-2 and W-3 both sit at Stages 0 and 1, ahead of everything this arc builds. If either stands, the walk cannot complete and the gate cannot be run, regardless of how well B-5 through B-9 land. Both are named for Step 0 in §6 and both need build-list items (§10).

8. What this arc does not scope

Struck by the browser pass — do not build.

The Companion's drafting refusal as an authority problem. W-10's first part is conditional, not confirmed; the refusal fires on one path and not on others, and the repair is the routing order named in §6, not a delegation-granting surface. What is confirmed and is in scope is the grant phrase, which fails, and which sits in CR-D.
Render name-disambiguation. Struck on identity. Currency remains, in CR-C.
Held-tray refresh. Struck; the tray populated immediately.

Belongs elsewhere.

B-11, B-12, B-13 — the recall arc. The instability in the answer, the addressing failure, the absence of search. Adjacent and rescoped by the same walk, but not this arc.
B-14 — ingestion. W-38's greyed-out file types is a direct breach of the seed's only show what is available; it belongs with the ingestion work, because the accepted-types filter must widen as ingestion lands or the new capability is invisible at the only place a user meets it.
B-26 — the correction to the record about the door-3 verification claim. Small, independent, already its own item.
W-8 — the version-history walk, untested in the browser pass. Adjacent to CR-E's hops and worth folding in if CR-E's Step 0 finds the machinery already present; otherwise its own item.

9. Open items and unresolved preconditions

Named rather than smoothed. Each is a real gap in what this note can claim.

W-2's status is unknown, and the acceptance gate sits on top of it. First item of CR-A's Step 0.
W-3 stands, appears on no build-list item, and precedes this arc's surfaces. Named for CR-C's Step 0.
The routing order in the draft-request handler is unresolved. Whether the unextractable-shape-type branch short-circuits ahead of the authorization check. Roughly forty lines settle it. First item of CR-D's Step 0. The plan does not branch on the answer; the change request does.
~~The two B-25 sizing sweeps have not been run.~~ CLOSED 2026-07-31. Both ran read-only against engine a317051. Result: eleven sites, one reclassification out, and one unanticipated class of eighty-three now filed as B-29. Findings at inspection-briefs/loomworks-b25-sizing-sweeps-findings-v0_1.
A timestamp discrepancy between two inspection sessions, source-named so it stays correctable: the 2026-07-31 inspection timed the E0007 Manifestation derivation at 15:52 in one timezone convention and the E0007 draft request at 15:52 in another, four hours apart or the same second depending on which label is right. Nothing in this note's reasoning rests on it. Any change request touching those events should read raw timestamps rather than either report.
Two judgment questions from the sizing sweeps, carried to B-25's Step 0 rather than settled: whether an escalation recipient's actor is an assertion about a party (the client's to make) or a reference to one (the engine's to resolve); and whether the seed-conversation Companion is person-bound, which decides whether its agent kind is a mislabel or correct.
How many live records already carry a fabricated author is unquantified. It needs a query against the serving perimeter, which is a decision of a different kind. For B-29 the equivalent question needs no query — the answer is structurally every object outside three sites, which makes its remediation one recorded marker rather than a per-record pass. For authorship there is no such shortcut.
CR-2026-145's as-built correction-matching mechanism is recorded nowhere, per manifest v0.76 §5, and W-31 observed a correction proposal matching unrelated content on shared vocabulary. This belongs to the recall arc, not here, but it is the kind of gap that will surface inside CR-D if correction-recognition is touched.

10. Absorbed into build list v0.8

All of v0.1's owed amendments landed in the same pass that produced this version. Recorded here as closed rather than deleted.

B-4 done, on the filing of v0.1. B-21 corrected to done — the reply was sent and the list said otherwise.
B-5 through B-9 carry their change-request mapping, and B-9's dependency on B-25 is explicit in its line.
B-25 resized from three sites to eleven, with the composition relabel moved out of it.
Three new items. B-27 and B-28 for the two broken paths that sit ahead of this arc and appeared nowhere on the list. B-29 for the fabricated provenance field.
W-10's disposition changed from struck to conditional.
Decision 9 recorded — the six shaping decisions and the four sizing rulings.

Still owed to the manifest at its next bump. The surface-silence class in v0.76 §5 is misnamed and undercounted. Silence is a subset of unverified assertion; the class now stands at twelve or more instances, most of them confident wrongness rather than silence — and the sizing sweeps add a thirteenth at the response boundary, where the record is honest and the shaper relabels it. Per corrections-preserved, the prior name and count stand with the correction marked alongside, not replaced.

DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks — the completion scoping note — v0.2 — 2026-07-31 Build-list item B-4. The ordered plan for B-5 through B-9, the rule that governs them, and the gate that closes them. v0.2 absorbs the B-25 sizing sweeps. v0.1 stands as a sibling at record 7f49eba.