CR-2026-206 — Checkpoint A report — v0.1

Date. 2026-08-12 · CR. change-requests/cr-2026-206-loomworks-creation-terminal-control-v0_1 · Baselines at Step 0. Engine a367db7, surface 6175e45; both trees clean. Built at. Engine cd91176, surface 7ac3cb2 — committed, NOT tagged, NOT pushed, NOT deployed. Halted at Checkpoint A.

The Step-4 catch, first — it changed the diff

The live eye-test's terminal sentence routed to a THIRD sibling. "That's everything. Set the project up.", typed live in a fresh door-1 conversation, classified finalize_project — not the commit_project_draft every scoping replay measured — and hit that handler's own project-less dead end ("I need to know which project to finalize"). The scoping's replayed histories never surfaced this sibling; a fresh conversation's different wording did. The acceptance gate as written covers it ("no project-less path reaches the dead-end reply"; "the exact terminal sentences reach step-up live"), so the net was extended to finalize_project's project-less branch mid-execution — same one-line shape, same target handler, its test observed failing first (via stash against the pre-fix tree). The confusable-sibling set is now known to be three, and both dead-ending members are netted.

Steps 0–4, as run

• Step 1. Reveal condition verified (a create_engagement_active companion turn — both doors produce one; door 2's seeded blocks carry them). The no-creation-history edge verified and pinned: the creation handler's ambiguous branch asks, never creates from nothing. In-candidate fence pinned. Engine tests observed failing first (5 + the Step-4 sixth via stash); surface positive tests observed failing against the pre-control component.
• Step 2/3. The fall-through in both siblings' None branches → _route_create_engagement_commit (client threading already existed — both intents were in _CREATION_TERMINAL_INTENTS). The control in ChatView: two buttons, menu words as labels, canonical sentences + intent_hint="create_engagement_commit" on send; handleSend gained the explicit-hint override (explicit wins over the entry-hint logic). The door-2 closer recomposed — names the two wired acts, promise gone. The template's commit invitation is no longer the mechanism: its question is marked courtesy; the controls are pointed at; the load-bearing "the next turn handles the commit" sentence removed (source-asserted). One deliberate test revision: the Phase 54 test pinning the old dead-end reply now pins the new behavior (its docstring says why).
• Gates. Engine 3707 passed, 0 failed; ruff clean; mypy at baseline (verdict lines read in full). Surface 773 passed, 0 failed (120 files); tsc clean.
• Step 4 — eye-test, live, on the scoping's exact sentences.
• Door 1, end to end: fresh talk-through; the terminal sentence first reproduced the (finalize) dead end on the pre-fix engine — then, after the bounce, the same sentence in the same conversation reached the two-path ask; "Commit it as is" ran the commit path; the findings gate surfaced honestly; the override chip proceeded; the commit_step_up ceremony card ("Commit with your passkey to make it official") now stands where the dead end was. The before and after sit side by side in one transcript.
• Door 2, to the ask: five answers seeded; the new armed closer served live ("…When you're ready, commit below — I can type this up into a structured record first, or commit it as we have it." — no "say the word"); "Set it up." → the two-path ask. Stopped there deliberately (no second candidate).

Left standing for the Operator — deliberately, per your instruction

• E0128 is the candidate awaiting your passkey; the browser tab is open at the "Make it official" button. Door 1's full transcript (including the pre-fix dead end at 1:40 PM and the post-fix ask at 1:51 PM) is preserved as the story. Door 2's test turns are torn down; focus pointer at E0127.

Deviations, named

1. The finalize_project extension (above) — within the gate's written scope; reported here rather than silently absorbed.
2. The control's on-screen check moves post-deploy (the CR-204 precedent): the deployed surface predates the control; its rendering is covered by the four component tests, and Step 5's post-deploy eye-test covers it live.
3. The typed-path eye-test necessarily exercised the net, not the hint (the deployed surface can't send the exit hint yet) — which is the right order: the net is what catches sentences the control doesn't send.

seed-mutability impact

Kind C — no contact. Checked: routing changes, a surface control, composed strings; the creation seams reached carry their own unchanged seed handling. A null finding is an entry; recorded either way.

Acceptance-gate status (CR §6)

1. Both doors reach the step-up/ask live on the exact scoping sentences — door 1 to step-up observed; door 2 to the ask observed (its commit path is the same handler door 1 traversed).
2. Fall-through pinned — green, now for both dead-ending siblings; the no-creation-history edge asks.
3. The promise armed — green (closer live-verified; template source-asserted).
4. Control tests — green (4/4; hint carried; typed path open).
5. Suites green; gates clean. Push runs + redeploy + post-deploy control eye-test: pending the gate.
6. seed-mutability recorded.

Halted. Awaiting GATE A APPROVED — PROCEED for CR-2026-206 before Step 5 (tag cr-2026-206-creation-terminal-control, push both, watch both runs, redeploy, post-deploy control eye-test).

DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida — CR-2026-206 Checkpoint A — v0.1 — 2026-08-12