Issue 215 Manifest-Driven Update Grill Log

Scope and evidence

The user requests a fix for issue 215 and substantial improvement to update performance, especially the delay before the first output. After research and brainstorming, the user explicitly accepted manifest-driven updates and asked to pin that direction through requirements-grill.

Research: Issue 215 safety and performance.
Current state: Grill status.
Existing authority: Issue 197 spec and accepted grill.
Source revision inspected: 1ee7f8b72f8fe116ad74aa15923238d3b985c751.

Research findings remain evidence. Only explicit user acceptance and inherited accepted requirements establish decisions. No implementation or publication is authorized by this artifact alone.

R0: accepted direction carried into the grill

Q1

Prerequisites:

None.

Evidence anchors:

apps/cli/src/update/run.ts:readManifest, observeManagedFile, runScaffoldOperation
apps/cli/src/features/scaffold-state/reconcile.ts
apps/cli/src/runtime/scripts.ts:copyPreviewTree

Observed constraint:

Managed ownership, expected state and file fingerprints already exist.
Candidate staging recursively copies unrelated files.
Repeated planning/materialization contributes additional work.
A target-baseline difference alone cannot detect local managed drift or changes to project settings/topology.

Question:

Should baseline updates use the recorded scaffold manifest and target baseline to derive a bounded update inventory, compare actual managed content, and selectively discover the additional files required for validation?

Accepted answer:

Yes. User acceptance: “agree with this. lets pin this into requirements-grill”.
Compare previous and target baseline inventories for added, changed and removed artifacts.
Include project settings and workspace configuration in desired-state invalidation.
Read and hash known managed paths directly to detect missing files, local edits and drift.
Determine exact owned writes while preserving project-owned content.
Construct the validation candidate from required inputs; prune irrelevant evidence, caches and virtual environments before traversing them.
Validation can require source/configuration beyond the changed managed files.
Ripgrep is a candidate discovery backend, not ownership authority or a mandatory newly accepted prerequisite.
AST-grep is relevant to structural code migrations when needed; it is not the generic baseline update mechanism.

Code consequence:

Derivation and ownership drive the Scaffold Plan. Discovery supplies bounded validation inputs.
Actual managed-state verification remains necessary even when the target baseline is unchanged.
Selection policy must be independent of the eventual file-enumeration implementation.

Q2

Prerequisites:

Q1.
Existing accepted issue 197 lifecycle requirements.

Question:

Which existing lifecycle contracts and accepted preservation requirements constrain the optimization?

Accepted answer:

Inherited from issue 197; these are carried forward without reopening them.
Scaffold, update and check share desired state and obligation classification.
Validation represents planned manifests, lockfiles, configuration and executable workspace topology; retain isolation, containment, disabled dependency lifecycle scripts and cleanup.
Lint findings warn; operational validation failures block dependent publication.
Preserve completed independent actions after unrelated failures. Dependent adoption and receipts advance only after verification.
Preserve repository-authored content and allowed mixed-entry edits; managed generated edits remain detectable. Unknown ownership blocks dependent writes.
Preserve project-owned verify-behavior references byte-for-byte.
Missing/corrupt proof requires verified recovery; do not infer success from file existence or silently revert to legacy ownership.
Unchanged verified state does not restart authoring or replacement. Missing required local tools are still unresolved readiness.
Issue 215 retains its original correctness scope: special entries, root aliases, workspace resolution, subprocess diagnostics, scaffold/check agreement and truthful writes.

Evidence anchors:

Issue 197 SPEC: OUT-005, OUT-008; AC-001, AC-008–011, AC-013, AC-017–020, AC-030, AC-033–036, AC-039–042.
Issue 197 grill status: “isolated affected validation”.
apps/cli/src/scaffold/output.ts:skipLintWorkspace
apps/cli/src/scaffold/project-verifier-preservation.test.ts
.agents/notes/2026-08-04-scaffold-parent-identity.md

Code consequence:

Performance improvements preserve apply confinement and adoption evidence.
An early validation failure cannot be reported as completed dependent writes. Previously completed independent work remains truthfully attributed.
Hash equality with initial scaffold bytes is not sufficient authority to overwrite repository-authored content.

Glossary carried forward with Q1–Q2

Accepted/inherited working meanings:

Baseline — the selected version of Harness-managed scaffold content and contribution definitions.
Scaffold Manifest — the repository's recorded adopted scaffold state and ownership evidence.
Managed Artifact — an artifact whose update obligations are defined by recorded ownership and the desired Scaffold Plan.
Context Plan — neutral per-scope contribution intent before paths and writes; inherited from issue 197.
Scaffold Plan — desired files, links, dependency/configuration changes and ownership; inherited from issue 197.
Validation Candidate — the isolated proposed repository state used to verify the planned update.

Relationships and axioms:

Context Plan feeds Scaffold Plan.
Scaffold Manifest records adopted state; Scaffold Plan describes desired state.
Validation Candidate represents the proposed state and its required validation context.
Ignore status does not establish ownership.
Planned changes do not establish completed writes.

These terms remain in the status glossary during the active grill. No canonical glossary publication has occurred.

R1: answered frontier

The technical grounding and prior brainstorm preceded this round. The user answered Q3–Q6; each answer is recorded below. Original recommendations remain visible for provenance.

Q3

Prerequisites:

Q1–Q2.

Evidence anchor:

apps/cli/src/runtime/scripts.ts:copyPreviewTree, runCandidateLintPreview; workspace install selection at lines 558–631.
Issue 197 SPEC OUT-008.

Observed constraint:

Validation currently receives broadly copied trees. A smaller candidate must still contain transitive configuration, workspace/catalog context and source needed by validation.

Question:

If the exact validation input set cannot be established, may update expand to the affected workspace and its required dependencies, or must it stop immediately?

Recommendation:

Allow bounded expansion to the affected workspace and required dependencies, with irrelevant runtime/evidence trees still excluded.
Stop dependent publication with an actionable input-resolution failure if completeness and containment still cannot be established.
Do not silently fall back to copying the entire repository.

Why:

This supports real workspace layouts without weakening validation or reintroducing unbounded copying.

Code consequence:

Input resolution exposes whether a complete candidate was established and owns the permitted expansion boundary.

Accepted answer:

Accepted the recommendation: allow bounded expansion to the affected workspace and required dependencies; keep irrelevant runtime/evidence trees excluded.
If complete and contained inputs still cannot be established, stop dependent publication with an actionable error. No silent whole-repository fallback.
User answer: “q3 ok”.

State: answered.

Q4

Prerequisites:

Q1–Q2.

Evidence anchors:

apps/cli/src/update/run.ts:runScaffoldOperation, repeated gather/materialization and bootstrap at lines 5747–5794.
apps/cli/src/runtime/scripts.ts, isolated dependency installation at lines 652–682.
apps/cli/src/integrations/tool-management.ts, readiness/install behavior at lines 518–548.

Observed constraint:

There is known duplicate work within one invocation. Persistent prepared-install or validation-result reuse would add new state and invalidation obligations.

Question:

Should this change introduce persistent caches, or first optimize each invocation through selective staging, reused planning results and verified readiness checks?

Recommendation:

First optimize within the invocation and use existing package-manager download caches.
Avoid new persistent prepared-install or lint-result caches in this change.
Avoid repeat setup when current readiness is proven; retain required missing-tool repair.
Reconsider persistent caches after before/after phase measurements identify remaining cost.

Why:

This addresses observed waste while keeping the first change's correctness and invalidation surface bounded.

Code consequence:

The accepted answer introduces persistent cache state. Its authority, identity, invalidation and candidate-isolation boundaries must be closed in the next round.

Accepted answer:

Include persistent caches in this change.
This rejects the recommendation to defer new persistent caches. Within-invocation optimization remains accepted.
Cache contents, reuse identity, invalidation, storage scope and maintenance still require decisions; inclusion alone does not approve a specific cache design.
User answer: “q4 we include them now”.

State: answered.

Q5

Prerequisites:

Q1–Q2.

Evidence anchors:

apps/cli/src/update/run.ts, planned/completed attribution at lines 6354–6398 and changedFiles at line 6439.
apps/cli/src/cli/update-presenter.ts:publicUpdateResult.
apps/cli/src/runtime/scripts.ts, subprocess output handling at lines 835–844.

Observed constraint:

Existing callers receive changedFiles containing planned paths, including on failed application. Truthful detailed operation states already exist.

Question:

Should the clearer JSON result retain existing fields and meanings, or replace the ambiguous legacy shape?

Recommendation:

Preserve existing fields/meanings for compatibility.
Expose explicit planned/completed outcomes and phase-specific failures from the same authoritative execution evidence.
Capture bounded subprocess diagnostics and keep JSON stdout parseable as one complete result.

Why:

Agents gain reliable attribution without silently breaking current consumers.

Code consequence:

Result projection evolves compatibly; planned and completed state cannot be inferred independently from inconsistent sources.

Accepted answer:

Accepted the recommendation: retain existing JSON fields and meanings; expose explicit planned/completed outcomes and phase-specific diagnostics from authoritative execution evidence.
Keep stdout parseable as one complete JSON result.
User answer: “q5 yes agree with you”.

State: answered.

Q6

Prerequisites:

Q1–Q2.

Evidence anchors:

apps/cli/src/platform/feature-application-operations.ts, baseline resolution then emitOutput: false at lines 346–362.
apps/cli/src/presentation/present.ts:captureCommandResult.
User reports the main pain as submit-to-first-print latency.

Observed constraint:

Intermediate feedback is suppressed and the result appears only after work. JSON stdout is consumed as a single document.

Question:

Should phase progress appear automatically in human mode, with JSON progress available only when explicitly requested on stderr?

Recommendation:

Yes. Human mode reports the active phase before expensive baseline/planning work.
JSON stdout remains one final result; requested progress uses stderr.
Record phase timings so visible responsiveness and total runtime can be assessed separately.

Why:

The user sees that work started while automation retains a stable output contract.

Code consequence:

Progress has a separate output path from the final result and begins before expensive operation phases.

Accepted answer:

Accepted the recommendation: automatic early phase progress in human mode, optional progress on stderr for JSON callers, one final JSON stdout result and phase timings.
Numeric performance budgets remain open.
User answer: “q6 yes”.

State: answered.

R1 persistence boundary

Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6 are answered independently. Shared-understanding confirmation remains not-ready. Persistent caches are now active scope; the earlier proposed deferral was rejected, not parked. Next frontier requires fresh technical grounding and a bounded cache brainstorm before questions are presented.

R2: cache boundary brainstorm

Q4 expands the accepted system boundary to persistent caches. The following bounded brainstorm was completed after inspecting the install/patch/lint flow, runtime environment, existing baseline cache and consumer cleanup contract. Its recommendations are candidates until answered.

Evidence:

apps/cli/src/runtime/scripts.ts:runCandidateInstall, runCandidateEffectPatch, runCandidateOxlint, runCandidateLintPreview: install and patch precede lint; fresh temporary candidates are removed after validation.
runtime/scripts.ts:childEnvironment and default preview capture: the current child process inherits ambient environment; it does not define a complete validation cache identity.
runtime/scripts.ts:fingerprintLiveState, manifestFingerprint: mutation/manifest checks are not complete cache keys.
apps/cli/src/baseline/resolve.ts:materializeBaseline and runtime/config.ts: existing baseline artifacts use an XDG/home cache, checked against authoritative digests.
scripts/validate-consumer-repositories.mjs:assertNoProjectionPublicationResidue: consumer .devpunks-cache must be absent or empty. A new persistent cache should not silently reuse that transient publication directory.
Issue 197 SPEC OUT-005/OUT-008: machine-local readiness is checked in the current worktree; candidate isolation, containment and disabled dependency lifecycle scripts remain required.
Candidate symlinks must resolve within the current candidate. A prepared installation containing absolute links into an old temporary path cannot be reused verbatim.

Observations:

Prepared dependency/toolchain reuse and validation-result reuse have different invalidation boundaries. A source edit may invalidate a validation result while leaving an installation reusable.
A cache hit can remove setup or validation work, but it cannot establish live installed-tool readiness, owned-write completion, manifest adoption or receipt publication.
Cache state should be disposable and derived. A missing entry should select the normal cold path.
Exact content inputs plus tooling/environment identity are needed; commit SHA, branch, timestamp or baseline version alone cannot establish equivalence.
Reusable installation material must preserve a fresh candidate's executable/workspace topology. Shared writable cached directories and stale absolute paths would violate isolation.
No new remote cache service is implied by the user's inclusion of persistent caches.

Q7

Prerequisites:

Q3–Q4.

Question:

Which results may the new persistent caches reuse: prepared dependency installations only, or both installations and completed validation results?

Recommendation:

Cache both prepared dependency/toolchain installations and completed validation results when their complete input identity is established.
Successful validation can include ordinary lint warnings; replay the same findings and counts so warm runs retain them.
Do not cache operational failures as reusable success.
A source/configuration change invalidates relevant validation results; dependency/resolution changes also invalidate the affected installation.
Recheck current worktree readiness and owned-file state on every invocation.

Why:

This addresses repeat setup and repeat lint work while keeping their distinct evidence requirements visible.

Code consequence:

Setup reuse and validation-result reuse are separate derived records with separate input dependencies.
The exact cache key, controlled environment and candidate isolation policy become the next dependent frontier if result reuse is selected.

Accepted answer:

Accepted the recommendation: cache both prepared dependency/toolchain installations and completed validation results when complete relevant input identity matches.
Replay findings/warnings, do not treat operational failures as cached success, and recheck current-worktree readiness and owned-file state.
User answer: “7 8 9 agree”.

State: answered.

Q8

Prerequisites:

Question:

May persistent cache entries be shared across local repositories/worktrees, or must reuse stay within the same checkout?

Recommendation:

Store caches outside consumer repositories in the user's local cache area.
Permit reuse across local worktrees/repositories only when full resolved inputs, platform/tool identity, isolation and any path-sensitive context match.
Include local/workspace dependency content in that identity; a remote URL or lockfile filename alone is insufficient.
No remote/shared CI cache service in this scope.

Why:

Repeated worktrees can benefit without leaving publication residue or treating unrelated projects as interchangeable.

Code consequence:

Cache ownership is local to the user. Reuse is content/context-driven rather than branch- or checkout-name-driven.
Path-bound or non-relocatable entries remain checkout-specific or miss the cache.

Accepted answer:

Accepted reuse across local repositories/worktrees for matching resolved inputs, tooling/platform context and path-sensitive state, stored outside consumer repositories.
The same reply explicitly expands the prior local-only boundary to branches, worktrees, PRs and CI; see direct requirement Q11 below. The no-remote-cache recommendation is superseded.
User answer: “7 8 9 agree”, followed by the explicit Turbo requirement in Q11.

State: answered.

Q9

Prerequisites:

Question:

Should the persistent caches be disposable and self-maintaining, with automatic recovery and explicit bypass/clear controls?

Recommendation:

Yes: bound storage, evict unused entries, provide bypass and clear operations, and explain hit/miss/rebuild reasons in diagnostics.
A corrupt or incompatible derived entry is rejected and rebuilt; an unavailable cache takes the normal cold path.
Cache maintenance never mutates the live repository, masks a real install/validation failure, or weakens baseline authority.
Concurrent readers/builders must not observe incomplete entries or mutate shared cached material.

Why:

Optimization should not require manual repair or become a new source of incorrect completion.

Code consequence:

Cache failure is separate from validation failure. Publication is complete-or-absent and cleanup respects in-use entries.
Exact CLI spelling, eviction constants and locking mechanics can be chosen during planning unless a user constraint emerges.

Accepted answer:

Accepted the recommendation: disposable/self-maintaining caches with bounded storage, eviction, rebuild on corruption, bypass/clear controls and visible hit/miss diagnostics.
Cache unavailability uses the cold path; concurrency/isolation, complete publication and live-repository protection remain required.
User answer: “7 8 9 agree”.

State: answered.

Q10

Prerequisites:

Q4, Q6.

Question:

Should performance acceptance be set from a reproducible before/after benchmark, with a fixed early-feedback budget and explicit limits on unnecessary work?

Recommendation:

Require first human progress within 250 ms on the agreed benchmark host, before baseline network resolution.
Record time to plan and total time separately for cold updates, warm unchanged runs and small managed updates.
Require zero irrelevant evidence files staged and no repeated install/lint when the corresponding validated cache entry is reusable.
Capture a valid before measurement, then agree numeric total-time targets before implementation is declared ready; do not invent a speedup from component timings.
Keep network resolution and cold downloads separate from local warm-path budgets.

Why:

This measures the user's wait and verifies work was removed without making an unsupported runtime promise.

Code consequence:

Performance evidence may include timings and operation counters. The accepted answer rejects hard timing/speedup thresholds and a mandatory numeric-target approval checkpoint.

Accepted answer:

Reject hard performance acceptance limits. No maximum duration, 250 ms gate, mandatory speedup percentage, or later numeric timing approval is required.
Early feedback, less unnecessary work and diagnostic before/after measurement remain useful, but they do not create numeric performance release gates.
Accepted cache-storage bounds from Q9 and correctness requirements are unaffected.
User answer: “10 no max perf acceptance. no hard limits”.

State: answered.

R2 persistence boundary

Q7–Q10 are answered. Installation and validation-result caches are in scope. Q10 rejects hard performance acceptance limits. Q8's local-only recommendation is superseded by the direct requirement below. Cache identity/eligibility remains to close.

Q11 — Direct expanded Turbo cache requirement

Prerequisites:

Q7–Q9.

Question / user direction:

“about 8 especially yes. turborepo caches must be available across multiple branches/woktrees/prs/ci runs. everywhere. make sure those tokens and such and access is correct”

Accepted answer:

Turborepo cache reuse must work across branches, worktrees, PRs and CI runs when task inputs and applicable compatibility conditions match.
Remote reuse, credentials and access are now in scope; the Q8 recommendation to keep remote caching out of scope is superseded.
Verify actual credential configuration/access without exposing token values.
Avoid accidental partitioning by branch, PR, commit, checkout location or run identity when those do not affect outputs.
The exact trust policy for fork PRs, development writers and protected publication requires grounding in current accepted security contracts; “everywhere” is not yet interpreted as permission to expose privileged tokens to untrusted code.
Do not assume CLI installation/validation caches and Turbo task caches are one artifact format or one API. Ground their integration boundary before choosing it.

Code consequence:

The active boundary now includes Turbo task identity/output declarations, local/remote cache wiring, workflow credential propagation, authorization/signing and proof of actual cross-context reuse.
Readonly configuration/provider inspection is authorized by the user's request. Production implementation and secret mutation remain downstream of the active requirements interview.

State: answered as direct user requirement; trust and integration details pending grounding.

R3: expanded shared-cache grounding and brainstorm

Grounding: Shared cache and access research.

The accepted system boundary now includes remote Turbo reuse. A focused brainstorm was rerun against current code and newer accepted cache policy:

Trusted internal PRs, main and release verification already share one signed namespace under the latest accepted policy. Older split-namespace prescriptions are superseded.
Current fork verification is unsupported. No new fork credential flow is implied.
Publication mutations execute independently of cacheable verification.
CI uses short-lived OIDC access tokens plus a separate signing secret. Secret-name presence is not end-to-end access proof.
Observed main CI has 15/16 task hits; the selected PR run has 0/16. Both enable remote caching and complete cache setup. Hit origin is not established by these summaries.
The current local session has no observed Turbo credential/signing configuration.
Environment-wide CI/NODE_ENV/TZ differences can partition identical task inputs. Runtime/capability identity declarations must have real producers before they establish safe reuse.
Turbo task artifacts and hi update's internal candidate/install/lint state are currently separate systems. Remote Turbo auth alone does not connect them.
An exact reusable Validation Result requires complete relevant source/configuration/tool/environment inputs. Dynamic unknown inputs cannot be replaced by an incomplete manifest hash.

Inherited policies and exact evidence are recorded in the research report. Recommendations below remain open.

Q12

Prerequisites:

Q7–Q9, Q11.
Completed current-code and remote-access grounding.

Evidence anchors:

turbo.json:tasks; .github/actions/turbo-cache/action.yml.
apps/cli/src/runtime/scripts.ts:runCandidateLintPreview: direct candidate preparation, install, patch and lint with no Turbo integration.

Observed constraint:

Turbo caches declared repository task outputs. The updater's internal Prepared Installation and Validation Result caches have independent identities and candidate-isolation requirements.

Question:

Should remote sharing also cover hi update's internal installation/validation entries, as well as Turbo build/test/lint task artifacts?

Recommendation:

Yes, support remote reuse for both when a configured compatible cache backend and complete input identity permit it.
Keep hi update usable without Turbo or a login through local caching and the normal cold path.
Reuse the existing signed remote-cache capability where suitable; do not assume that both cache entry types have the same schema or authority.
No separate remote service is approved merely by this recommendation; a need for new infrastructure would be a further decision.

Why:

This follows the user's broad reuse goal while preserving standalone consumer operation and precise cache evidence.

Code consequence:

Remote cache transport becomes an optional boundary for updater internals, not a mandatory consumer dependency.
Turbo task artifacts and updater evidence keep their own input/output contracts and isolated materialization.

Accepted answer:

Accepted the recommendation: support optional remote reuse for internal hi update Prepared Installations and Validation Results as well as Turbo task artifacts.
Keep hi update usable without Turbo or authentication through shared local caches and the cold path.
Preserve separate artifact/evidence schemas and isolated materialization; use the existing signed remote capability where appropriate.
A new remote service or changed trust boundary remains a separate decision if implementation needs it.
User answer: “agree all”, responding to Q12 and Q13.

State: answered.

Q13

Prerequisites:

Q7–Q8.
Completed validation-input grounding.

Evidence anchors:

apps/cli/src/runtime/scripts.ts:childEnvironment, fingerprintLiveState, manifestFingerprint.
apps/cli/oxlint.config.ts: executable configuration imports dependency presets.
turbo.json:globalEnv, tasks.*.env, tasks.*.passThroughEnv.

Observed constraint:

Current fingerprints do not capture arbitrary config imports, environment reads, runtime versions or external state. Some apparent local/CI differences are irrelevant; others materially change task results.

Question:

May validation-result reuse occur only when all result-affecting inputs are represented or controlled, with fresh validation whenever that cannot be established?

Recommendation:

Yes. Key source/configuration/dependency content, tool/patch/runtime/platform capability, semantic environment and relevant command options.
Normalize irrelevant branch/worktree/CI-location differences instead of hashing location labels blindly.
Changes that affect results must invalidate the relevant entry.
For dynamic or untracked inputs that cannot be made complete, rerun affected validation and report why its result was not reused.
Do not claim a successful validation hit from only a commit SHA, baseline version, mtime or package-manifest hash.
Current-worktree readiness, ownership and publication evidence remain live checks.

Why:

This maximizes valid sharing while preventing stale success from concealing changed behavior.

Code consequence:

Cache eligibility is an explicit outcome of input resolution. Ineligible validation uses the cold execution path instead of silently weakening the correctness gate.
A source-only change may retain installation reuse even when validation must execute again.

Accepted answer:

Accepted the recommendation: reuse validation only when all result-affecting inputs are represented or controlled.
Otherwise run the affected validation fresh and report why reuse was unavailable; preserve all correctness gates.
Normalize irrelevant context differences while retaining meaningful content/tool/runtime/environment identity.
User answer: “agree all”, responding to Q12 and Q13.

State: answered.

R3 persistence boundary

Q7–Q11 are pinned. Q12 and Q13 are the complete currently unblocked frontier. There are no hard performance acceptance limits, and no proposal to restore them later. Timing/work-counter evidence remains diagnostic.

Credentials/access are not declared fully verified: observed CI OIDC setup and task hits are concrete evidence; local authentication, provider policy breadth, artifact-specific cross-context read/write and runner isolation remain delivery evidence to obtain.

R4: final consistency and shared-understanding checkpoint

All Q1–Q13 decisions are answered. No material design question remains and no branch is parked. The user’s “agree all” accepted the two open R3 recommendations; this checkpoint presents the complete persisted result for explicit grill closure.

Final domain-modeling pass:

Scaffold Manifest describes adopted state; Scaffold Plan describes desired state. Cache entries do not replace either authority.
Prepared Installation and Validation Result have separate input identities. Both can use optional remote transport; ordinary operation retains local/cold fallback.
Cache reuse eligibility and validation-input completeness are distinct: an uncertain cache key triggers fresh validation; an incomplete or uncontained required candidate still blocks dependent publication under Q3.
A warm validation result replays findings, including warnings; it does not attest that current local tools, owned writes or publication are complete.
“Everywhere” means all eligible trusted contexts with compatible result-affecting inputs. It does not erase platform sensitivity, admit fork credentials or cache external publication mutations.
“No hard limits” rejects timing/speedup acceptance thresholds. It does not remove Q9’s bounded cache storage or correctness gates.
Credential names, an enabled-remote message and generic cache-hit counts do not replace artifact-specific local/CI access proof.

No new requirement or term was added by this pass. The live view is derived from this log and the status; corrections must update both before closure.

Current frontier: empty.
Shared-understanding confirmation: pending.
Branches: 99% pending the single final closure confirmation; implementation/access evidence is separately outstanding.
Next route after explicit closure: canonical wiki synthesis, then create-spec through Requirements Phase.

R5: explicit closure and direct planning handoff

The user approved the complete shared understanding: “i approve this. dont compile into a spec. encode it directly as is into create-plan”. All Q1–Q13 decisions and canonical terms remain unchanged. All branches are closed at 100%; no question or parked branch remains. The earlier R4 pending checkpoint is historical and is superseded by this approval.

The direct execution plan consumes this log and the status artifact as its requirements source. No SPEC.md, implementation, provider Task projection, publication, or credential mutation is part of this planning run. Runtime, performance, and cross-context cache access evidence remain delivery obligations.

Issue 215 Manifest-Driven Update Grill Log

On this page