Date: 2026-08-28
Repository: MSKazemi/idkmesh
This record summarizes the maintainer/integration continuation after the large PR/branch convergence pass. The governing rule throughout was transactional: every accepted merge changes canonical main, so earlier eligibility, branch-plan, and exact-head judgments become historical until revalidated.
PR #202 merged the first executable Core -> DomainPack -> ProjectManifest boundary.
It added:
The PR was rebuilt on then-current main while preserving the ten reviewed implementation blobs exactly, and fresh combined-tree Project Domain Contracts, Phase 0, IDKGraph, randomness, and Evolution checks passed before merge.
Issue #6 is complete.
Historical planner PR #205 was not merged twice. Merged #211 had already transplanted its six implementation blobs onto current main, so #205 was closed as superseded.
PR #215 added canonical branch-state resnapshotting after every main push.
PR #217 then added PR-lifecycle observation. Maintainer review corrected an initial freshness race: pull_request_target must never use contributor-head code, and its first design also must not allow a recorded pre-merge base.sha scan to supersede a newer main push scan.
The corrected observer used trusted canonical code, but real repository activity exposed a second-order control problem: observation itself consumed too much GitHub API capacity.
Post-#221 Branch Convergence Audit run 33205890139 passed deterministic tests and then exhausted the GitHub App installation API budget during O(branches) live classification.
PR #222 therefore made the Branch Steward homeostatic:
main push, schedule, or manual dispatch;full_scan_complete=false and merge_authorized=false;Exact post-merge evidence:
40fd0a9e08ff05e8fd4208699412024fa41da105;33206373560, job 98968345231: SUCCESS under current rate pressure; planner SKIPPED; blocked/no-plan evidence retained;9699810801, digest sha256:3abbb0fbd360f57125170d76d281e305a38ca0d780ecef323ee356d6d45d50c4;33206373662, job 98968345923: only the three-step invalidation job ran; full audit job was SKIPPED.Issue #127 contains the canonical branch-lifecycle record. No fresh branch counts should be inferred from a blocked/incomplete scan.
PR #203 merged a machine-checkable IDKGraph review-session format and validator. It can validate reviewer identity/independence disclosure, anchoring exposure, active review minutes, labels, confidence, evidence and recommendations.
It does not create a reviewer, infer semantic labels, approve work, or grant integration authority.
During integration the IDKGraph workflow was also hardened with immutable action SHAs and persist-credentials: false.
This distinction matters for the remaining PRs: project automation may validate independent human evidence, but cannot manufacture the independence itself.
PR #214 merged the Algorithm Collaboration Fabric architecture.
The key non-compensation rule is now canonical:
hard safety / feasibility gate
cannot be overridden by
soft optimization or collaboration score
Correctness verification and integration governance remain separate authority planes. A future collaboration signal may route attention or nominate bounded experiments, but cannot make unsafe or unverified work acceptable.
Draft PR #213 installs a fail-closed zero-cost GitHub Actions compute mechanism, but issue #35 remains an external governance blocker because public GitHub metadata still reports main as unprotected.
Maintainer review found and fixed an activation-ordering flaw: the early workflow gate originally depended only on main protection + repository opt-in, while canonical repository/ref/event validation happened later in the Python adapter. A manual dispatch on a non-main ref could therefore reach dependency installation/repository scripts before final rejection.
The draft branch now requires, before any active step:
MSKazemi/idkmesh;refs/heads/main;{schedule, workflow_dispatch};ACTIVE_COMPUTE_PULSE_ENABLED is exactly true;The corrected draft head passed Phase 0, IDKGraph and Evolution checks. It remains draft because mechanism readiness is not activation authority.
PR #216 added a sharp count-contamination envelope for scalar reports under at most f arbitrary reports.
For sorted observations x_(1) <= ... <= x_(n) and f < n:
L_f = mean(lowest n-f reports)
U_f = mean(highest n-f reports)
Every admissible honest-report subset mean lies in [L_f, U_f]; the endpoints are sharp under the count-only assumption.
Maintainer review found a numeric-contract defect before merge: ordinary Python comparisons allow NaN to evade bound checks. A concurrent squash merge captured the pre-fix version, so corrective PR #218 was created from actual merged main and added finite-domain checks for reports, bounds, threshold and margin plus regression tests.
PR #218 merged as 0504eac6274579dd6daf5b7c32ab405a77d9bc09.
The envelope remains report-level decision support only; it makes no truth, Sybil-resistance or Byzantine-consensus claim.
PR #220 merged a typed, non-scalar evidence lattice. It deliberately does not multiply provenance, discrimination, correlation, contamination, sequential and drift channels into one confidence number.
Focused post-merge review found a fail-open typing bug: control fields were read using Python truthiness, so values such as "false" could behave as true.
Corrective PR #221 made these fields strict required Booleans:
hard_guard.payload.passed;provenance.payload.valid;discrimination.payload.passed;drift.payload.detected_change.Truthy strings, numeric substitutes and missing fields now fail closed. PR #221 merged as 95660ebd7c72b28a7a81a875b897b685ec0d6d4e after the dedicated Evidence Aggregation Fabric, randomness and Evolution checks passed.
At the end of this record the live PR queue contains three intentionally held paths:
Open and review-ready, labeled help wanted.
Its own risk section requires independent review before integration. No PR review has been submitted. It therefore remains outside main; author/project automation does not manufacture the required independent approval.
Draft. Mechanically hardened, but external issue #35 (protected main) remains unsatisfied. Merge must not be interpreted as activation.
Draft. Exact candidate already has fresh CI and controlled Docker positive + A–E2 evidence, but issue #138 requires a genuinely separate human reviewer. Automation, worker success, byte equality, or verifier evidence are not that reviewer.
This continuation produced a useful repository-level control law:
more observation != more knowledge
when observation consumes a shared scarce resource.
The safer rule is:
if state changes but observation capacity is low:
invalidate old belief
reduce authority
wait for enough sensing capacity
else:
resnapshot
recompute
This is the same homeostatic principle used in ACE and other IDKMesh controllers: resource pressure suppresses amplification rather than being compensated by activity.
event != action
action != candidate
candidate != verified result
verification != approval
approval != merge
merge != realized improvement
stale observation != current authority
blocked observation != partial permission
The repository should continue optimizing verified durable progress per unit of reviewer, maintainer, compute and observation cost—not branch, PR, workflow or event volume.