v2.16.0

Changed

• The outside read on a consequential technical decision names an actor and fires on a fact. technical-design said that a decision expensive to undo "gets one read from a context that did not produce it", which told nobody to take one and keyed the duty to the run's own estimate of its own choice. Ten runs in 2.4.2 produced ten sound designs and no outside read, each judging its decision cheap to reverse, and three kernel rewordings changed nothing. The read is now owed whenever the choice adds or replaces something the project then keeps: a dependency, a service, a schema, a data migration, a public interface, or custom code chosen over a maintained alternative. campaign-direction keyed its pointer to the same estimate and now keys it to the same fact.

• delegation says to set the delegate's level in the dispatch rather than to name it, and to set the host's per-delegate control rather than to name the model. In the 2.15.0 receipts one run opened the method, wrote that each lane would run at ordinary level, and passed no level in any of its five dispatches. "Named explicitly" was satisfied by saying it.

• Five rules that had two homes now have one, found by scanning every normative sentence in the package against every other. The kernel's isolated-checkout invariant was repeated word for word in advancing-tracked-work. Stopping and resuming an anomalous work stream was stated in both execution-health and campaign-direction. Reconciling an item was stated in both tracked-work methods and had already drifted, one saying an item the code has overtaken closes as done and the other that it is reported as done. The stalled-lane rule stood in three files. testing stated the regression-observation rule in two sections under two different qualifiers.

• Where the act happens in a different file from the rule's home, the point of use now carries a pointer rather than a copy. testing keeps the regression rule once, in the section that owns regression tests, and says what to do when reproducing the defect is unsafe or impractical instead of leaving that as an escape clause attached to a second copy.

• A second cross-host pass found the exclusion that bounded the first repair was the reversibility estimate in a new form. "A choice held inside one file that a later change can delete on its own" asks a run to predict future coupling, immediately after the text says these are facts rather than estimates. It is replaced by a present-state test: an implementation choice in one file is outside the rule while nothing outside that file depends on it and this same change establishes it as no boundary for later work.

• The method-list line and the scope line for campaign-direction disagreed a second time, on whether a record claiming the conditions is enough or live evidence is required. The method requires live evidence, which is what the release before it settled about records. Both lines now say so, the method's scope line as a list so that one live-evidence qualifier governs all six conditions.

• A cross-host review of the release found the first draft of the outside-read list reaching further than the rule it replaced in one direction and less far in the other: it would have fired on a one-line dependency and missed an expensive concurrency, security, deployment, or internal-architecture decision. The list now names those boundaries, and a choice held inside one file that a later change can delete on its own is excluded. docs/decisions.md says the scope moves both ways rather than claiming it did not move.

• The same review found campaign-direction's scope line naming a condition its method-list line did not, machinery delaying the outcome it protects. The method said it applied where the kernel would never open it. The method-list line now carries the condition.

Evidence

• The duplication was found mechanically and every disposition was made by hand. Every sentence of seven words or more in the kernel and the twenty-three methods was compared with every other, 865 sentences and 373,680 pairs. Forty-nine pairs passed the similarity threshold and four of them were second homes. Of the rest, nineteen are the intended pairing between a method-list trigger and the scope line repeating it, thirteen are a kernel invariant with the technique under it, and thirteen are two methods stating adjacent rules in their own terms. The fifth fix, the regression duplication inside testing, scored below the threshold because its two statements share almost no vocabulary; it was found by reading, which is where the scan ends.
• Two kernel rules that tracked-work restates as the premise of its own sections were left alone: an item exists before the branch, and an item closes on integration. Version 2.8.0 argued that placement as three options and chose it, the two copies do not disagree, and no receipt shows them drifting. Reopening it on symmetry alone is what this project's own record tells a release not to do.
• No receipt covers the new outside-read trigger. The failure it answers is measured, ten runs to zero on both hosts, and the replacement is reasoning from the text. Whether naming a fact rather than a self-estimate gets the read taken is UNVERIFIED.
• Package checks: scripts/check.py passed and git diff --check is clean. Claude package validation passed. Codex package validation is UNVERIFIED; this machine has no Codex plugin validator.