@azure-id/orc 1.9.1 → 1.9.2

package/templates/skills/orc-challenge/references/council.md

@@ -1,315 +1,315 @@
-# The council
-
-> **A lens raises; only the judge resolves. ORC proposes the council; the user
-> picks it.**
-
-**a lane that picks its own council has broken this contract.**
-
-That is the fourth member of a family, and the split is the same every time —
-the facts are ORC's to look up, the decision is the user's to take:
-
-| Lane | Broken by |
-|---|---|
-| `../../_shared/interview.md` | `a lane that answers its own interview question` |
-| `/orc-brainstorm` | `a lane that picks its own favourite` |
-| `/orc-challenge` | `a lane that fixes what it judged` |
-| `/orc-doc` | `a lane that reads its own document` |
-| **`/orc-challenge` council** | **`a lane that picks its own council`** |
-
-A council chosen by ORC is ORC deciding **which kinds of criticism the user is
-allowed to hear** — a bigger decision than any single finding in the run.
-
----
-
-## The roster — seven lenses
-
-One always runs. Six are selectable. **The user selects them.**
-
-| Lens | Display | Agent | Effort | Class | Ids | Blocks? |
-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| `judge` | The Judge | `orc-challenge-judge-opus-5-high` | high | finding | `F-` | yes |
-| `reader` | The Cold Reader | `orc-challenge-reader-opus-5-low` | low | finding | `R-` | yes |
-| `contrarian` | The Contrarian | `orc-challenge-contrarian-opus-5-high` | high | finding | `C-` | yes |
-| `outsider` | The Outsider | `orc-challenge-outsider-opus-5-low` | low | finding | `O-` | yes |
-| `executor` | The Executor | `orc-challenge-executor-opus-5-med` | medium | finding | `E-` | yes |
-| `principles` | The First Principles Thinker | `orc-challenge-principles-opus-5-high` | high | **premise** | `Q-` | **never** |
-| `expansionist` | The Expansionist | `orc-challenge-expansionist-opus-5-med` | medium | **opportunity** | `X-` | **never** |
-
-`orc-challenge-advisor-opus-5-med` is **not a lens.** It never inspects the
-artifact for defects; it turns a FAIL into a fix strategy, and rule 5 still
-holds: **no advisor on PASS.**
-
-**Never hand-list these anywhere else.** `orc challenge roles --json` is the
-catalogue; the P0 ask in `intake.md` renders it, and `orc ui` draws the roster
-card from it. One list, three renderers — the Flow-stepper rule.
-
-### What each one is for, and how each one fails
-
-| Role | It asks | It fails when |
-|---|---|---|
-| The Contrarian | "where is the fatal flaw?" | it assumes the artifact is fine and stops looking |
-| The First Principles Thinker | "are we even solving the right problem?" | it accepts the framing it was handed |
-| The Expansionist | "what is being undervalued here?" | it only counts what is wrong |
-| The Outsider | "what does this assume I already know?" | it is an expert and cannot un-know things |
-| The Executor | "what do you actually do on Monday morning?" | it grades the theory and never the first step |
-
-### Why each effort — and the rule that protects it
-
-**Effort here is a measurement choice, not a cost choice.** The same sentence
-governs the cold reader and the `/orc-doc` checker, and it now governs two more:
-
-- **`outsider` is `low` for the same reason `reader` is.** A harder-thinking
-  outsider reasons its way *around* an unexplained acronym and reports that the
-  document is fine. The whole instrument is "do not reconstruct — report what is
-  actually on the page." **Nothing may ever upgrade it.**
-- **`contrarian` is `high` because a shallow contrarian finds only the obvious.**
-  At low effort it returns the same three surface complaints the free lint
-  already caught.
-- **`principles` is `high`** — rebuilding a problem statement from the ground up
-  is the deepest reasoning any role in this lane does.
-- **`expansionist` and `executor` are `medium`** — pattern work against a
-  concrete artifact, the same class as the advisor.
-
-All seven are `claude-opus-5`, so **`opus5_only` is a no-op for this lane: it is
-unaffected, not exempt.** The agent count rises by exactly five, with no paired
-variants (the v0.47.0 precedent).
-
----
-
-## The reader / outsider seam — read this before touching either
-
-These two are the closest pair in ORC, and the one place this design can produce
-a duplicate instrument. The distinction is **structural, not stylistic**:
-
-| | `reader` | `outsider` |
-|---|---|---|
-| Told the audience | **yes** | **no** |
-| Told the goal / kind / template | no | no |
-| What it generates | 8–15 questions **the artifact promised to answer**, from its own headings | nothing — it reacts to what is in front of it |
-| What it returns | a **scored** questionnaire (`8/12`) + `R-###` | an **unscored** ranked list of assumed knowledge + `O-###` |
-| The measurement | *can this be answered from the page?* | *what does this page assume you already know?* |
-| Feeds | D4 | D5, and D4 where an assumption is load-bearing |
-
-They are dispatched **with no knowledge of each other**, and their reports are
-never merged before the judge reads them. **Where they agree, that is the
-strongest comprehension evidence this lane can produce** — recorded as
-`corroborated_by: [reader, outsider]`, and **never an automatic severity bump**
-(the `/orc-aftermath` rule: churn is a signal, not a verdict).
-
----
-
-## Three output classes — the honest split
-
-```
-class: finding      → judge, reader, contrarian, outsider, executor
-class: opportunity  → expansionist
-class: premise      → principles
-```
-
-Two of the six cannot produce a finding **without lying**, and forcing them to
-would be the single worst decision available here.
-
-### Why the expansionist cannot produce a finding
-
-A finding must carry `serves` — the goal element it advances — and `record`
-DROPS a finding without one (rule 0, structural). The expansionist's brief is
-*"what upside is everyone missing?"*, which by construction is **not** in the
-stated goal. Given a `serves` field it would either invent a goal element or be
-silently dropped by the CLI.
-
-```yaml
-opportunity:
-  id: X-002
-  what: "the retry table generalises to every idempotent write in the service"
-  upside: "…"
-  first_step: "…"             # concrete; an upside with no first step is a daydream
-  anchor: "docs/tsd-payments.md:212"
-  confidence: medium
-  route: brainstorm           # brainstorm | pact | grill | none
-```
-
-**An opportunity never blocks, never has a severity, and never enters
-`findings[]`.** It is conserved — `orc challenge opportunity <slug> <id>
---take|--drop --reason "…"`, both requiring a reason — and it is ROUTED: an
-adopted one belongs in `/orc-brainstorm`, and one the user wants to commit to
-belongs in `/orc-pact`. **This lane never builds it.**
-
-### Why the first-principles thinker cannot produce a finding
-
-Its most valuable output is *"you are asking the wrong question entirely"* — and
-in this lane the question is the **frozen goal**. A finding is measured against
-the goal; a premise challenge disputes the **yardstick**. Those cannot be the
-same object.
-
-```yaml
-premise:
-  id: Q-001
-  disputes: goal              # goal | audience | done_means | out_of_scope
-  quote: "<the exact line from goals.md it disputes>"
-  reframe: "…"                # the problem restated from the ground up
-  what_changes: "…"           # what this review would attack instead
-  cheapest_test: "…"          # how to settle it without a rewrite
-```
-
-**A premise challenge is resolved by a HUMAN and by nobody else.** Exactly two
-resolutions exist:
-
-1. **Adopt** → `orc challenge goals <slug> --set <path> --reason "…"` — a
-   `regoal` event; `goals.version` increments, prior iterations keep their stamp,
-   and the iteration rail draws the version break. That mechanism has existed
-   since v0.47.0; the council is the first thing that can legitimately move it.
-2. **Dismiss** → `orc challenge premise <slug> <id> --dismiss --reason "…"`. The
-   reason is mandatory and stays visible in the report forever.
-
-**The judge NEVER sees the premise report.** Handing a judge a document arguing
-that the frozen goal is wrong biases every finding it produces afterwards.
-
-> **The three finding lenses feed the judge. The two non-finding lenses feed the
-> user.** That sentence is the whole architecture.
-
----
-
-## C3 — dispatch discipline
-
-The **judge slice is SEALED** as it always was — one row per FINDING lens, and
-`principles.md` / `expansionist.md` are named as forbidden in `sealed-slice.md`.
-
-- Every lens is dispatched **BY NAME**. An unnamed dispatch cannot enforce the
-  pin and is invisible to the trace hook (the v0.34.5 wiki-scanner lesson) — and
-  a by-name dispatch gets `SPAWN`/`RETURN` for free, which is how `/orc-retro`
-  can finally answer *"is the contrarian earning its dispatch?"*
-- **Hard cap: 3 in flight**, announced when it bites, **no config key**. Six
-  simultaneous returns is six `../../_shared/return-validation.md` blocks in one
-  orchestrator context, and this lane's orchestrator has a document to hold too.
-- Every return is validated per `../../_shared/return-validation.md`:
-  `actual_model` and `actual_effort`, **quoted, never guessed**.
-- **A selected lens that did not run is NOT-RUN with a reason** — rule 6
-  (`NOT-CHECKED` is never silent) extended to roles. The orchestrator writes
-  `{ "lens": "contrarian", "ran": false, "reason": "…" }` into the verdict's
-  `council[]`, and `record` accepts it. **Silence is rejected by name.**
-
-### What each lens writes
-
-```
-orc/orc-challenge/<slug>/iteration-NN/council/
-    reader.md      reader.json
-    contrarian.md  contrarian.json
-    outsider.md    outsider.json
-    executor.md    executor.json
-    principles.md  principles.json      ← recorded by `note`, never by `record`
-    expansionist.md expansionist.json   ← recorded by `note`, never by `record`
-```
-
-The `.md` is for the human and for the judge's slice. The `.json` is the machine
-half, and it is what makes the next section possible.
-
----
-
-## Council conservation — the gate that makes this safe
-
-The obvious failure of adding five reviewers is that **the judge quietly ignores
-four of them** and the run looks identical while costing five times more.
-
-> **Every id the council raised must appear in the judge's return with exactly
-> ONE disposition and a reason. `council_coverage_pct` must be 100.**
-
-That is `conservation.md` applied to **input** instead of to carry-forward, and
-`orc challenge record` enforces it without reading a word of prose: **it reads
-`iteration-NN/council/*.json` ITSELF and derives the id set.** The judge cannot
-shrink it by omission, because the set was never the judge's to report.
-
-### The disposition set — closed
-
-| Disposition | Meaning | Requires |
-|---|---|---|
-| `adopted` | the judge agrees; the finding enters `findings[]` under its own id | `severity`, `dimension`, `serves` |
-| `merged` | the same defect as another finding | `merged_into` (a resolvable id) |
-| `rejected` | the judge read the anchor and disagrees | `reason` |
-| `out-of-goal` | real, but traceable to no goal element | `reason` — and it is **reported**, never silently dropped |
-
-**`adopted` keeps the raiser's id.** `C-004` stays `C-004` in the verdict, in the
-report, in iteration 9. An id is permanent (`conservation.md`), and this is what
-lets the panel say *"the contrarian raised four of the six blockers this
-iteration"* — which is how a user finds out whether a lens is worth its money.
-
-### Carrying forward across a changed roster
-
-Iteration 2 runs the contrarian, iteration 3 does not, and `C-004` is still open.
-Who resolves it?
-
-> **The judge resolves every carried finding, whatever prefix it carries.**
-
-Rule 11 already says a carried finding is re-judged **from the artifact on disk**,
-never from an account of what changed — so the judge never needed the original
-raiser. That makes the roster freely variable between iterations at zero cost to
-conservation, and it is why lenses may only *raise*.
-
-`record` therefore keeps its existing `coverage_pct` gate exactly as it was and
-adds `council_coverage_pct` beside it.
-
-### The gates, each rejecting BY NAME (all exit 2)
-
-| Gate | Rejects |
-|---|---|
-| `council-unset` | the cycle's roster is `null` (a migrated v1 cycle) |
-| `unknown-lens` | a `lens` outside the catalogue |
-| `bad-prefix` | a finding whose id prefix disagrees with its lens |
-| `duplicate-id` | the same id from two lenses |
-| `lens-silent` | a roster lens with neither a report on disk nor `ran: false` + a reason |
-| `council-coverage` | any raised id missing a disposition — **the missing ids are named** |
-| `bad-disposition` | outside the set, `merged` without a resolvable `merged_into`, or `rejected`/`out-of-goal` with no reason |
-| `class-mismatch` | an opportunity or a premise inside `findings[]` |
-| `unknown-corroborator` | `corroborated_by` naming a lens that did not run this iteration |
-
-**PASS is computed exactly as before.** An adopted council finding is an ordinary
-finding from that moment on; `challengeBlocking()`, `challengeOpen()`,
-`challengeCounts()` and `challengeStateOf()` are untouched. **The pass gate
-learns nothing about the council**, which is what keeps rule 2 true.
-
----
-
-## The frozen roster
-
-The roster is **not a config key.** A global default would silently answer the
-one question this whole design exists to ask. It is a per-cycle FROZEN decision
-in the ledger, changed only by a recorded `recouncil` event:
-
-```bash
-orc challenge council <slug> --set contrarian,executor --reason "…"
-```
-
-`council_version` increments exactly like `goals.version` and
-`template.version`, and the iteration rail draws a **third** version break for
-it — because comparing an iteration judged by three lenses to one judged by six
-is not a comparison.
-
-A cycle opened before v0.49.1 reads back with `council: null`, and `record`
-refuses the next iteration by name until the roster is answered. **A silent
-default would be ORC picking the council.**
-
----
-
-## The trace
-
-`record` returns the line and the skill copies it **VERBATIM**:
-
-```
-CHALLENGE iter=2 findings=P0:1/P1:3/P2:6 coverage=100% council=4/5 raised=C:6,O:3,E:2 adopted=9 verdict=FAIL
-```
-
-`council=4/5` is *lenses that ran / lenses on the roster*, so a NOT-RUN lens is
-visible in the trace, in `orc stats`, and to `/orc-retro` — not only in the
-panel.
-
----
-
-## How the council fails — and what prevents each
-
-| Failure | Prevention |
-|---|---|
-| Five reviewers run and the judge ignores four | `council_coverage_pct`, computed from disk, never from the judge's account |
-| The expansionist's ideas get dropped for having no `serves` | the `opportunity` class — it never enters `findings[]` |
-| ORC decides which criticism the user is allowed to hear | rule 12, and `--council` has no default |
-| Six lenses, six wordings of one defect | `merged` + `corroborated_by`, and the per-lens raise counts make a useless lens visible within two iterations |
-| Reader and outsider collapse into one instrument | two different slices and two different return contracts — and when they agree, that is recorded as corroboration, not duplication |
-| A premise challenge destabilises every review | it never blocks, it resolves only by a human decision with a recorded reason, and a user who does not want their premise questioned simply does not select it |
+# The council
+
+> **A lens raises; only the judge resolves. ORC proposes the council; the user
+> picks it.**
+
+**a lane that picks its own council has broken this contract.**
+
+That is the fourth member of a family, and the split is the same every time —
+the facts are ORC's to look up, the decision is the user's to take:
+
+| Lane | Broken by |
+|---|---|
+| `../../_shared/interview.md` | `a lane that answers its own interview question` |
+| `/orc-brainstorm` | `a lane that picks its own favourite` |
+| `/orc-challenge` | `a lane that fixes what it judged` |
+| `/orc-doc` | `a lane that reads its own document` |
+| **`/orc-challenge` council** | **`a lane that picks its own council`** |
+
+A council chosen by ORC is ORC deciding **which kinds of criticism the user is
+allowed to hear** — a bigger decision than any single finding in the run.
+
+---
+
+## The roster — seven lenses
+
+One always runs. Six are selectable. **The user selects them.**
+
+| Lens | Display | Agent | Effort | Class | Ids | Blocks? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `judge` | The Judge | `orc-challenge-judge-opus-5-high` | high | finding | `F-` | yes |
+| `reader` | The Cold Reader | `orc-challenge-reader-opus-5-low` | low | finding | `R-` | yes |
+| `contrarian` | The Contrarian | `orc-challenge-contrarian-opus-5-high` | high | finding | `C-` | yes |
+| `outsider` | The Outsider | `orc-challenge-outsider-opus-5-low` | low | finding | `O-` | yes |
+| `executor` | The Executor | `orc-challenge-executor-opus-5-med` | medium | finding | `E-` | yes |
+| `principles` | The First Principles Thinker | `orc-challenge-principles-opus-5-high` | high | **premise** | `Q-` | **never** |
+| `expansionist` | The Expansionist | `orc-challenge-expansionist-opus-5-med` | medium | **opportunity** | `X-` | **never** |
+
+`orc-challenge-advisor-opus-5-med` is **not a lens.** It never inspects the
+artifact for defects; it turns a FAIL into a fix strategy, and rule 5 still
+holds: **no advisor on PASS.**
+
+**Never hand-list these anywhere else.** `orc challenge roles --json` is the
+catalogue; the P0 ask in `intake.md` renders it, and `orc ui` draws the roster
+card from it. One list, three renderers — the Flow-stepper rule.
+
+### What each one is for, and how each one fails
+
+| Role | It asks | It fails when |
+|---|---|---|
+| The Contrarian | "where is the fatal flaw?" | it assumes the artifact is fine and stops looking |
+| The First Principles Thinker | "are we even solving the right problem?" | it accepts the framing it was handed |
+| The Expansionist | "what is being undervalued here?" | it only counts what is wrong |
+| The Outsider | "what does this assume I already know?" | it is an expert and cannot un-know things |
+| The Executor | "what do you actually do on Monday morning?" | it grades the theory and never the first step |
+
+### Why each effort — and the rule that protects it
+
+**Effort here is a measurement choice, not a cost choice.** The same sentence
+governs the cold reader and the `/orc-doc` checker, and it now governs two more:
+
+- **`outsider` is `low` for the same reason `reader` is.** A harder-thinking
+  outsider reasons its way *around* an unexplained acronym and reports that the
+  document is fine. The whole instrument is "do not reconstruct — report what is
+  actually on the page." **Nothing may ever upgrade it.**
+- **`contrarian` is `high` because a shallow contrarian finds only the obvious.**
+  At low effort it returns the same three surface complaints the free lint
+  already caught.
+- **`principles` is `high`** — rebuilding a problem statement from the ground up
+  is the deepest reasoning any role in this lane does.
+- **`expansionist` and `executor` are `medium`** — pattern work against a
+  concrete artifact, the same class as the advisor.
+
+All seven are `claude-opus-5-5`, so **`opus5_only` is a no-op for this lane: it is
+unaffected, not exempt.** The agent count rises by exactly five, with no paired
+variants (the v0.47.0 precedent).
+
+---
+
+## The reader / outsider seam — read this before touching either
+
+These two are the closest pair in ORC, and the one place this design can produce
+a duplicate instrument. The distinction is **structural, not stylistic**:
+
+| | `reader` | `outsider` |
+|---|---|---|
+| Told the audience | **yes** | **no** |
+| Told the goal / kind / template | no | no |
+| What it generates | 8–15 questions **the artifact promised to answer**, from its own headings | nothing — it reacts to what is in front of it |
+| What it returns | a **scored** questionnaire (`8/12`) + `R-###` | an **unscored** ranked list of assumed knowledge + `O-###` |
+| The measurement | *can this be answered from the page?* | *what does this page assume you already know?* |
+| Feeds | D4 | D5, and D4 where an assumption is load-bearing |
+
+They are dispatched **with no knowledge of each other**, and their reports are
+never merged before the judge reads them. **Where they agree, that is the
+strongest comprehension evidence this lane can produce** — recorded as
+`corroborated_by: [reader, outsider]`, and **never an automatic severity bump**
+(the `/orc-aftermath` rule: churn is a signal, not a verdict).
+
+---
+
+## Three output classes — the honest split
+
+```
+class: finding      → judge, reader, contrarian, outsider, executor
+class: opportunity  → expansionist
+class: premise      → principles
+```
+
+Two of the six cannot produce a finding **without lying**, and forcing them to
+would be the single worst decision available here.
+
+### Why the expansionist cannot produce a finding
+
+A finding must carry `serves` — the goal element it advances — and `record`
+DROPS a finding without one (rule 0, structural). The expansionist's brief is
+*"what upside is everyone missing?"*, which by construction is **not** in the
+stated goal. Given a `serves` field it would either invent a goal element or be
+silently dropped by the CLI.
+
+```yaml
+opportunity:
+  id: X-002
+  what: "the retry table generalises to every idempotent write in the service"
+  upside: "…"
+  first_step: "…"             # concrete; an upside with no first step is a daydream
+  anchor: "docs/tsd-payments.md:212"
+  confidence: medium
+  route: brainstorm           # brainstorm | pact | grill | none
+```
+
+**An opportunity never blocks, never has a severity, and never enters
+`findings[]`.** It is conserved — `orc challenge opportunity <slug> <id>
+--take|--drop --reason "…"`, both requiring a reason — and it is ROUTED: an
+adopted one belongs in `/orc-brainstorm`, and one the user wants to commit to
+belongs in `/orc-pact`. **This lane never builds it.**
+
+### Why the first-principles thinker cannot produce a finding
+
+Its most valuable output is *"you are asking the wrong question entirely"* — and
+in this lane the question is the **frozen goal**. A finding is measured against
+the goal; a premise challenge disputes the **yardstick**. Those cannot be the
+same object.
+
+```yaml
+premise:
+  id: Q-001
+  disputes: goal              # goal | audience | done_means | out_of_scope
+  quote: "<the exact line from goals.md it disputes>"
+  reframe: "…"                # the problem restated from the ground up
+  what_changes: "…"           # what this review would attack instead
+  cheapest_test: "…"          # how to settle it without a rewrite
+```
+
+**A premise challenge is resolved by a HUMAN and by nobody else.** Exactly two
+resolutions exist:
+
+1. **Adopt** → `orc challenge goals <slug> --set <path> --reason "…"` — a
+   `regoal` event; `goals.version` increments, prior iterations keep their stamp,
+   and the iteration rail draws the version break. That mechanism has existed
+   since v0.47.0; the council is the first thing that can legitimately move it.
+2. **Dismiss** → `orc challenge premise <slug> <id> --dismiss --reason "…"`. The
+   reason is mandatory and stays visible in the report forever.
+
+**The judge NEVER sees the premise report.** Handing a judge a document arguing
+that the frozen goal is wrong biases every finding it produces afterwards.
+
+> **The three finding lenses feed the judge. The two non-finding lenses feed the
+> user.** That sentence is the whole architecture.
+
+---
+
+## C3 — dispatch discipline
+
+The **judge slice is SEALED** as it always was — one row per FINDING lens, and
+`principles.md` / `expansionist.md` are named as forbidden in `sealed-slice.md`.
+
+- Every lens is dispatched **BY NAME**. An unnamed dispatch cannot enforce the
+  pin and is invisible to the trace hook (the v0.34.5 wiki-scanner lesson) — and
+  a by-name dispatch gets `SPAWN`/`RETURN` for free, which is how `/orc-retro`
+  can finally answer *"is the contrarian earning its dispatch?"*
+- **Hard cap: 3 in flight**, announced when it bites, **no config key**. Six
+  simultaneous returns is six `../../_shared/return-validation.md` blocks in one
+  orchestrator context, and this lane's orchestrator has a document to hold too.
+- Every return is validated per `../../_shared/return-validation.md`:
+  `actual_model` and `actual_effort`, **quoted, never guessed**.
+- **A selected lens that did not run is NOT-RUN with a reason** — rule 6
+  (`NOT-CHECKED` is never silent) extended to roles. The orchestrator writes
+  `{ "lens": "contrarian", "ran": false, "reason": "…" }` into the verdict's
+  `council[]`, and `record` accepts it. **Silence is rejected by name.**
+
+### What each lens writes
+
+```
+orc/orc-challenge/<slug>/iteration-NN/council/
+    reader.md      reader.json
+    contrarian.md  contrarian.json
+    outsider.md    outsider.json
+    executor.md    executor.json
+    principles.md  principles.json      ← recorded by `note`, never by `record`
+    expansionist.md expansionist.json   ← recorded by `note`, never by `record`
+```
+
+The `.md` is for the human and for the judge's slice. The `.json` is the machine
+half, and it is what makes the next section possible.
+
+---
+
+## Council conservation — the gate that makes this safe
+
+The obvious failure of adding five reviewers is that **the judge quietly ignores
+four of them** and the run looks identical while costing five times more.
+
+> **Every id the council raised must appear in the judge's return with exactly
+> ONE disposition and a reason. `council_coverage_pct` must be 100.**
+
+That is `conservation.md` applied to **input** instead of to carry-forward, and
+`orc challenge record` enforces it without reading a word of prose: **it reads
+`iteration-NN/council/*.json` ITSELF and derives the id set.** The judge cannot
+shrink it by omission, because the set was never the judge's to report.
+
+### The disposition set — closed
+
+| Disposition | Meaning | Requires |
+|---|---|---|
+| `adopted` | the judge agrees; the finding enters `findings[]` under its own id | `severity`, `dimension`, `serves` |
+| `merged` | the same defect as another finding | `merged_into` (a resolvable id) |
+| `rejected` | the judge read the anchor and disagrees | `reason` |
+| `out-of-goal` | real, but traceable to no goal element | `reason` — and it is **reported**, never silently dropped |
+
+**`adopted` keeps the raiser's id.** `C-004` stays `C-004` in the verdict, in the
+report, in iteration 9. An id is permanent (`conservation.md`), and this is what
+lets the panel say *"the contrarian raised four of the six blockers this
+iteration"* — which is how a user finds out whether a lens is worth its money.
+
+### Carrying forward across a changed roster
+
+Iteration 2 runs the contrarian, iteration 3 does not, and `C-004` is still open.
+Who resolves it?
+
+> **The judge resolves every carried finding, whatever prefix it carries.**
+
+Rule 11 already says a carried finding is re-judged **from the artifact on disk**,
+never from an account of what changed — so the judge never needed the original
+raiser. That makes the roster freely variable between iterations at zero cost to
+conservation, and it is why lenses may only *raise*.
+
+`record` therefore keeps its existing `coverage_pct` gate exactly as it was and
+adds `council_coverage_pct` beside it.
+
+### The gates, each rejecting BY NAME (all exit 2)
+
+| Gate | Rejects |
+|---|---|
+| `council-unset` | the cycle's roster is `null` (a migrated v1 cycle) |
+| `unknown-lens` | a `lens` outside the catalogue |
+| `bad-prefix` | a finding whose id prefix disagrees with its lens |
+| `duplicate-id` | the same id from two lenses |
+| `lens-silent` | a roster lens with neither a report on disk nor `ran: false` + a reason |
+| `council-coverage` | any raised id missing a disposition — **the missing ids are named** |
+| `bad-disposition` | outside the set, `merged` without a resolvable `merged_into`, or `rejected`/`out-of-goal` with no reason |
+| `class-mismatch` | an opportunity or a premise inside `findings[]` |
+| `unknown-corroborator` | `corroborated_by` naming a lens that did not run this iteration |
+
+**PASS is computed exactly as before.** An adopted council finding is an ordinary
+finding from that moment on; `challengeBlocking()`, `challengeOpen()`,
+`challengeCounts()` and `challengeStateOf()` are untouched. **The pass gate
+learns nothing about the council**, which is what keeps rule 2 true.
+
+---
+
+## The frozen roster
+
+The roster is **not a config key.** A global default would silently answer the
+one question this whole design exists to ask. It is a per-cycle FROZEN decision
+in the ledger, changed only by a recorded `recouncil` event:
+
+```bash
+orc challenge council <slug> --set contrarian,executor --reason "…"
+```
+
+`council_version` increments exactly like `goals.version` and
+`template.version`, and the iteration rail draws a **third** version break for
+it — because comparing an iteration judged by three lenses to one judged by six
+is not a comparison.
+
+A cycle opened before v0.49.1 reads back with `council: null`, and `record`
+refuses the next iteration by name until the roster is answered. **A silent
+default would be ORC picking the council.**
+
+---
+
+## The trace
+
+`record` returns the line and the skill copies it **VERBATIM**:
+
+```
+CHALLENGE iter=2 findings=P0:1/P1:3/P2:6 coverage=100% council=4/5 raised=C:6,O:3,E:2 adopted=9 verdict=FAIL
+```
+
+`council=4/5` is *lenses that ran / lenses on the roster*, so a NOT-RUN lens is
+visible in the trace, in `orc stats`, and to `/orc-retro` — not only in the
+panel.
+
+---
+
+## How the council fails — and what prevents each
+
+| Failure | Prevention |
+|---|---|
+| Five reviewers run and the judge ignores four | `council_coverage_pct`, computed from disk, never from the judge's account |
+| The expansionist's ideas get dropped for having no `serves` | the `opportunity` class — it never enters `findings[]` |
+| ORC decides which criticism the user is allowed to hear | rule 12, and `--council` has no default |
+| Six lenses, six wordings of one defect | `merged` + `corroborated_by`, and the per-lens raise counts make a useless lens visible within two iterations |
+| Reader and outsider collapse into one instrument | two different slices and two different return contracts — and when they agree, that is recorded as corroboration, not duplication |
+| A premise challenge destabilises every review | it never blocks, it resolves only by a human decision with a recorded reason, and a user who does not want their premise questioned simply does not select it |