From 9c0fb1be47e73731a626dcbe97ed7e9bb3f5b270 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Timmy <timmy@stackchain.ai>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2026 12:53:56 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] queue: corrections against issue #73's own body, and #73
 assigned to the epic owner

1. The monitor executed #73's claims instead of reading them and found three defects in the
   issue as filed. Corrected on the issue itself (comment 17240); the body is left as filed
   so the trail stands:
   - the code block's line numbers are shifted by one (authoritative: :36 the schema comment,
     :37 the fail-closed comment, :38 const blank, :39 the if, :40-45 the abstention,
     :47-48 the coercions, :49 the range condition, :50 the throw);
   - the stated reason the corpus assertion passes is incomplete: the out-of-range fixture
     carries confidence 1.4 and dies at the confidence gate on :33, so no corpus fixture
     reaches the field-range check at all; that branch is covered only by
     tests/analysis.test.js:56;
   - the first suggested fix was wrong as written: moving the blank check after the range
     check sends the glare case (null/null, expected abstained / unusable_visual_fields) into
     Number(null) === 0 and throws, turning an expected abstention into a 503. The fix must
     fail close only non-blank out-of-range values.

2. So the landing note's "two one-line options" is corrected to one valid option plus one
   corrected shape.

3. #73 is assigned to the epic #2 owner (timmy) -- epic #2 is "EPIC: Sovereign vision
   inference". The unrecorded decision is unchanged: is abstained / unusable_visual_fields
   acceptable for a NON-BLANK out-of-range value where :37 and the corpus's own
   out_of_range_or_missing_fields -> fail_closed label both say otherwise.

4. Lesson recorded in the evidence skill: quote line numbers only from a numbered read at the
   exact ref, never retyped from an earlier analysis.
---
 WORK-QUEUE.md | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)

diff --git a/WORK-QUEUE.md b/WORK-QUEUE.md
index 3bc704e..11fe727 100644
--- a/WORK-QUEUE.md
+++ b/WORK-QUEUE.md
@@ -4020,6 +4020,29 @@ the git parent count, not the flag. **Issue #18 closed 12:02:43Z**; open issues
 superseded by the 12:08Z amendment immediately below this note — the Q25 negative control it pinned was already
 delivered inside Q25's own deliverable §2, so Mercury's day-3 unit is the first slice of Q31.)*
 
+**Corrections against #73's own body, 2026-10-11 12:53Z (control plane).** The monitor executed #73's claims
+rather than reading them and found three defects in the issue as filed — corrected on the issue itself (comment
+`17240`), body left as filed so the trail stands:
+
+1. the code block's line numbers are shifted by one (authoritative: `:36` the schema comment, `:37` the
+   fail-closed comment, `:38` `const blank`, `:39` the `if`, `:40-45` the abstention, `:47-48` the coercions,
+   `:49` the range condition, `:50` the throw);
+2. the stated reason the corpus assertion passes is incomplete — the out-of-range fixture carries
+   `confidence: 1.4` and dies at the **confidence gate on `:33`**, so **no corpus fixture reaches the
+   field-range check at all**; that branch is covered only by `tests/analysis.test.js:56`;
+3. the first suggested fix was wrong as written — moving the blank check after the range check sends the
+   `glare` case (`null/null`, expected `abstained / unusable_visual_fields`) into `Number(null) === 0` and
+   throws, converting an expected abstention into a 503. The fix must fail close **only non-blank**
+   out-of-range values.
+
+So the earlier line "two one-line options" is corrected to **one valid option plus one corrected shape**. #73
+is assigned to the epic #2 owner (`timmy`); the unrecorded decision it asks for is unchanged: is `abstained /
+unusable_visual_fields` acceptable for a **non-blank** out-of-range value where `:37` and the corpus's own
+`out_of_range_or_missing_fields → fail_closed` label both say otherwise.
+
+Lesson recorded in the evidence skill: quote line numbers only from a numbered read at the exact ref, never
+retyped from an earlier analysis — an off-by-one in a filed report costs the reader more than the finding saves.
+
 **Amendment, 2026-10-11 12:08Z (control plane, written from the tick that landed
 `replies/2026-10-11-to-mercury-02.md` at `d5a1798`) — the day-3 pin above is corrected: the Q25 negative
 control it pins has already been executed and recorded, so Mercury's day-3 unit is the first slice of Q31, and