Rule 4 removes a lane when its ARC is done AND its durable facts are in
docs/agent-handoff.md. Both hold: #213 merged, and §1 carries the five
facts Stage 3 produced. The lane goes; the distribution and CI-CRDT
lanes stay, rewritten, because each keeps named follow-ons.
The canonical base and the RECOVERY FLOOR both advance to f186253. The
floor moving with the base is this file's own rule, and the reason is
worth restating: a check that accepts an older commit than the declared
base passes on a tree the rest of the file does not describe. The three
places that named cfc1710 — the base line, the prose, and the `git log`
verification step — now name f186253 together, because a floor that
advances in one place and not the others is worse than one that does not
advance at all.
TWO CI WEAKNESSES STAGE 3 EXPOSED, recorded in the crdt lane that owns
that job rather than lost with the lane being retired:
* CI does not pass --no-fail-fast, so a multi-suite break reports as a
single-suite one. #213's first crdt failure showed ONE suite where a
local --no-fail-fast sweep of the same tree showed THIRTEEN. The
Stage 3 census hit the identical trap and recorded it; CI has it
too.
* The crdt job pairs the heaviest build — lavapipe, full workspace
with crdt, the largest test count — with real-PTY smokes on
5-second deadlines. #213 saw two different such suites fail on two
runs of the same commit; one was a real regression, the other was
load. That ambiguity is the actual problem: a job where noise and
signal look alike trains people to rerun rather than read.
Neither is a defect and neither is fixed here. They are decisions about
what the crdt job should cost, and they belong to whoever picks that
lane up.
Two ops lessons move to the handoff §5, both learned the expensive way
on #213:
* A LOCAL SWEEP IS BLIND TO WHICHEVER FEATURE CONFIGURATION IT DOES
NOT BUILD. Stage 3's census and every verification sweep ran
`--features luajit` without `crdt`, so compile_mode_crdt_acceptance
reached CI broken. Sweep both configurations before calling a corpus
green.
* "MY CHANGE MADE THIS FRAGILE" IS A DIFFERENT FINDING FROM "THIS WAS
ALWAYS FLAKY", and only one of them is yours to fix. Two CI runs on
one commit failed different PTY/GPU suites — the load-sensitivity
signature, on suites the flake list already names. The tell that it
was neither: the failures kept landing on GPU TERMINAL tests, and
terminal placement was what the PR changed. Ask which tests and why
those, before reaching for a rerun.
Docs only.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Levi Neuwirth
b2aa16d6ed