docs(ssot): row #97 — aif-handoff convergence-loop (ADOPT VOCABULARY, DN #11=A) - #322
Merged
Conversation
… DN #11=A) Registers the convergence-aware auto-review loop (closure_first + AGENT_MAX_REVIEW_ITERATIONS) already used verbatim in generated kickoff §4c. Resolves DECISION-NEEDED #11 from PR #321 (maintainer chose Option A). Append-only; no existing row edited. Prior-art: skipped — append-only SSOT row registering an already-adopted vocabulary; no new capability, no dependency, no code change.
artyhoo
enabled auto-merge (squash)
May 31, 2026 22:10
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Adds SSOT row #97 to
prior-art-evaluations.md— aif-handoff convergence-aware auto-review loop (closure_first+AGENT_MAX_REVIEW_ITERATIONS+ convergence-detection), verdict ADOPT VOCABULARY.Resolves DECISION-NEEDED #11 from the companion-capability survey (PR #321) — maintainer chose Option A (register the already-adopted vocabulary) on 2026-06-01. The vocabulary was operationally in use (generated kickoff §4c sets
AGENT_AUTO_REVIEW_STRATEGY=closure_firstverbatim) but never logged in the register — exactly the stranded-convention shape this SSOT exists to prevent.Append-only: one new row, no existing row edited. Verdict parallels #88 (autoQueueMode pool-slot) and #93 (
when-stuckworker-side park).§1.7 Forward-check applied
This single-row append complies with the active disciplines checked below.
prior-art-evaluations.md §3— append-only honored: row appended below the line-68 marker, no in-place edit of any existing row. file:line evidence:docs/meta-factory/prior-art-evaluations.md:165build-first-reuse-default.md— verdict ADOPT VOCABULARY (not BUILD); we consume aif's own runtime env-vars, zero dependency added. file:line evidence:docs/meta-factory/prior-art-evaluations.md:165no-paid-llm-in-ci.md— verdict: clean; vocabulary registration, no CI LLM call introduced.reviewer-discipline.md §2— the row records a maintainer-decided fork (DN feat(phase-8): acceptance gate Next 15->16 + canonical regen + GO verdict for Phase 9 #11 = A), not a reviewer-picked strategy. file:line evidence:docs/meta-factory/research-patches/2026-06-01-companion-capability-survey.md:274§1.7 Backward-check applied
Swept the existing register rows under this addition's scope for collision/duplication.
prior-art-evaluations.md:#88— sibling autoQueueMode sub-component; docs(research-patches): instruction-compliance vs structural-forcing empirical research #97 is disjoint (convergence-loop, not pool-slot), cross-referenced not duplicated. file:line evidence:docs/meta-factory/prior-art-evaluations.md:1652026-06-01-companion-capability-survey.md §2 row #11— the survey explicitly deferred this row to maintainer review; docs(research-patches): instruction-compliance vs structural-forcing empirical research #97 is the resolution of that deferral. file:line evidence:docs/meta-factory/research-patches/2026-06-01-companion-capability-survey.md:89