CR-2026-200 — Checkpoint A — v0.1

Date. 2026-08-10 · Author. Claude Code (execution). Operator: Marvin Percival. CR. change-requests/cr-2026-200-loomworks-b81-grant-pathway-v0_1.md (filed, record 92688cd). Gate A approved; the personal-path scope extension recorded as confirmed by the Operator mid-execution, in their words: the ruling was about a sentence typed inside a project meaning here; outside a project the argument doesn't reach. Baseline confirmed. Engine 5e6cd17, tree clean at Step 0. Working tree now holds: delegation/rendering.py (new), delegation/schema.py, orchestration/router.py, api/routers/assertions.py, tests/test_cr_2026_200_grant_pathway.py (new), and one wording-pin update in tests/test_cr_2026_129_recall_truthfulness.py. Nothing committed, tagged, or pushed.

Step 1 — render sites enumerated; the halt did not fire

Sites a held/committed delegation's content reaches, all through existing string fields — no wire-schema change anywhere:

1. The personal Memory-room held card (the assertions API's single serializer, _assertion_to_schema) — and Step 1 established this is the only confirm surface: a personal held draft commits only via the human held-card Confirm; no conversational commit exists, by design (router.py, the Phase 43 §D3 docstring). The card that must be readable is exactly the card that must be pressed.
2. The conversational ack (server-composed, being replaced by this CR).
3. Personal recall — recall_personal reads committed personal content wholesale into both its server-composed readout and operation_data; a committed delegation's JSON escaped there too.
4. show_held is engagement-scoped and never surfaces personal delegations — not a site.
5. (Reported, out of scope: the refine path could in principle revise a held delegation with plain corrected text — a pre-existing edge, unchanged.)

Step 2 — the confirm is readable (ruling 2, first)

One renderer (delegation/rendering.py): the grant as a single Operator-vocabulary sentence naming capability, scope, and approval mode — "Standing authority: the Companion may draft specifications in the project “apple-trees”, asking you each time." Stored content stays JSON (R-A28); only the wire rendering maps — the vocabulary-wall discipline. Applied at: the assertions list route and single-get (with one batched title lookup so a scoped card names the project, per ruling 1); the recall readout and its operation_data; and the ack — now "Got it, held: Standing authority: … It takes effect only when you confirm it on its held card" — composed from the parsed grant, never the model, and pointing at the real confirm.

Step 3 — reachability, strictly after (rulings 3 and 1)

Two minimal wires, no pre-dispatch interception:

• (1b) _route_remember_about_me extracts from message — the Operator's own words — not the paraphrase; the extraction moved ahead of the no-extractable-fact guard (the raw message can carry a grant even when extraction came back empty).
• (1a) route_intent forwards message into _route_add_knowledge (the one dropped hop); the same extraction runs ahead of the note path. A grant sentence typed in-project lands held in personal memory, scoped to that project, with the readable ack — and writes no project note. Everything else falls through unchanged.
• Scope (ruling 1): in-project → [engagement]; an enumerated everywhere-marker (across all my projects, everywhere, …) → "all"; personal path → "all" (the Operator-confirmed extension). The matcher itself is untouched (ruling 4) — same prefixes, same action table, shown better input.

Step 4 — evidence

• 13/13 CR tests, written first: 5 wire-dependent tests observed failing against pre-wire code (the pure renderer/extractor additions passed as expected — they were additions). Coverage: the sentence names all three facts with no JSON leak; the held-card API renders the sentence and the scoped project name; the ack names capability + scope + confirm pointer; 1b from the live paraphrase input; 1a with the no-project-note check; the three scope defaults; the negative controls (ruling 4) — "You can imagine how hard this was", a capability-less "you can" sentence, and the paraphrase itself all still extract nothing; and the end-to-end check that an engagement-scoped grant authorizes there and is denied elsewhere (the new default exercising the existing scope matching).
• One pre-existing wording pin updated with its property preserved: test_delegation_grant_ack_composed_from_write_result asserted the old ack's contiguous phrase ("draft specifications without asking"); the new ack carries the same facts with the scope phrase between them. The pin now asserts the two properties separately, with the reasoning in a comment. This is the only touched pre-existing test.
• Full suite 3653 passed, 68 skipped, 0 failed (8m59s; the run before the pin update was 3652/1, the one failure being that pin). Ruff clean; mypy 0 new.

Seed-mutability impact

Kind C — checked, no contact. Delegation content, rendering, routing wires, and the assertions serializer; no seed accessor touched. A null finding is an entry.

Awaiting Step 5

Tag cr-2026-200-b81-grant-pathway. Push. Watch the CI run and report. Then the acceptance-gate eye-test (gate item 1 — the arc closing): the denial reply's own suggested sentence, typed in-project by the test persona, through held-grant-with-readable-card, confirm, and the CR-2026-197 approval card — throwaway engagement, torn down, every eye-test turn's classified_intent captured before teardown.

DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida CR-2026-200 — Checkpoint A — v0.1 — 2026-08-10 The card that must be readable is exactly the card that must be pressed.