okstra 0.179.2 → 0.183.2

package/runtime/prompts/lead/plan-body-verification.md

@@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ Plan-body verification runs **after** finding convergence and **after** the repo
 ```
 Phase 4   workers produce independent analyses (Findings F-001…)
   → Phase 5.5   FINDING convergence ([convergence](./convergence.md), sections "Convergence Algorithm" through "Convergence State Artifact")
-  → Phase 6   report-writer authors final-report data.json (consolidated Option Candidates / Stepwise Execution Order / Dependency / Validation Checklist / Rollback)
-  → okstra plan-items extract + validate creates the deterministic P-* queue
+  → Phase 6   report-writer authors report-writer-narrative Markdown (consolidated Option Candidates / Stepwise Execution Order / Dependency / Validation Checklist / Rollback)
+  → okstra plan-items prepare + prompt + validate-prepared creates and projects the deterministic P-* queue
   → PLAN-BODY VERIFICATION ROUND ← this contract
   → final render/validation
   → User Approval gate (the frontmatter `approved:` flip is honoured by run-prep only when this round's Gate result is `passed` or `passed-with-dissent`)
@@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ The shared Majority definition and the auto-disable rule (fewer than 2 analyser
 From the report-writer's draft of `## 5.4 Implementation Plan Deliverables`, the lead creates the verification queue only through this sequence (see also `templates/reports/final-report-v2.template.md` §5.5.9):
 
 ```text
-okstra plan-items extract --data <data.json> --output <state>/plan-items-....json
-→ place the persisted `items[]` verbatim in every verifier prompt
-→ okstra plan-items validate --data <data.json> --items <state>/plan-items-....json
+okstra plan-items prepare --narrative <report-writer-narrative.md> --run-manifest <run-manifest>
+→ place `okstra plan-items prompt --run-manifest <run-manifest>` output verbatim in every verifier prompt
+→ okstra plan-items validate-prepared --narrative <report-writer-narrative.md> --run-manifest <run-manifest>
 ```
 
 The persisted `items[]` are the sole queue. The lead MUST NOT freely summarise,
@@ -103,6 +103,130 @@ For every detector-produced `(stage, kind)`, extract exactly one plan item named
 
 When extracting each item, lead also captures a **`subject`** — a plain one-line label (≤12 words) describing *what that item is* in the reader's terms, e.g. `P-Opt-1` → "Option A: split upload v2 into a new module", `P-Step-1.1` → "Stage 1 Step 2: regression-check with `npm run test:v2`". This is a label-capture, not new analysis. The `subject` is what §5.5.9 renders as the per-item heading so the reader knows *what* each AGREE/DISAGREE is about without cross-referencing §4.5; a bare `P-*` ID with no subject is a contract violation. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_item_subject_substance` fails a subject that is a placeholder — under 3 chars, equal to the item id, or shaped like a bare `P-*` id.
 
+## Fact and judgement (BLOCKING)
+
+A single-vote block has a reason behind it: two spelled-out references
+contradicting each other is a fact one verifier can settle by looking, and a
+fact must not be outvoted. What was missing is that the fact was never checked —
+writing "this path does not exist" was enough to block.
+
+So a DISAGREE on a single-vote kind declares what sort of claim it is:
+
+- **`claimKind: fact`** — okstra can reproduce it. Carry a `reproduction` probe:
+  `path-exists` / `path-absent`, `literal-present` / `literal-absent`, or
+  `citations-differ`. **okstra runs it and writes `reproductionResult`; do not
+  write that field yourself.** A verifier that reports its own result puts the
+  gate on a self-report, and the same claim then settles differently depending
+  on who raised it.
+- **`claimKind: judgement`** — no mechanical check exists. It takes a quorum,
+  exactly like `b` / `c` / `e`.
+
+A claim that cannot be written as one of those three probes is a `judgement`.
+That is a classification, not a demotion: giving a single-vote block to something
+no machine can confirm is what was wrong in the first place.
+
+| Declared | Reproduced | Effect |
+|---|---|---|
+| `fact` | `reproduced` | blocks on one vote |
+| `fact` | `not-reproduced` | quorum, and the claim is recorded as unfounded |
+| `fact` | `not-runnable` | quorum — okstra could not judge it, which refutes nothing |
+| `judgement` | — | quorum |
+| nothing declared | — | blocks on one vote, as before |
+
+The last row is deliberate. Verdicts recorded before this field existed are not
+re-judged in hindsight, so adoption only ever relaxes: a claim earns the quorum
+route by declaring itself, never loses a block by staying silent.
+
+**Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_single_vote_block_survives`, with
+the probes in `scripts/okstra_ctl/claim_reproduction.py`.
+
+## What the gate asks (BLOCKING)
+
+The gate does not ask whether the plan is free of defects. Under adversarial
+reading a plan of any size yields findings every round, so a bar of zero is not
+reachable and a run that aims at it does not end — one task spent five runs and
+its last two went entirely into the plan's account of itself.
+
+It asks two things instead, and both must hold:
+
+1. **The stage about to start is executable as written.** Its steps, commands,
+   exit contract, rollback target and validation signals are settled — §"Gate
+   scope" decides which items that covers.
+2. **What was set aside is written down.** Every defect the gate stopped
+   blocking on appears in `planBodyVerification.setAside` with its reason —
+   `observed` (a frozen stage), `deferred` (a stage not yet reached), or
+   `record` (the plan's account of itself).
+
+The second condition is what makes the first safe to relax. Knowing a defect is
+the acceptance condition, not removing it; without the register a deferred
+defect and one nobody raised read the same in the report.
+
+`okstra plan-items complete-round` writes the register from the same computation
+that produced the gate value. Do not hand-write it — a hand-written register
+drifts from the verdicts it claims to summarise, and nothing else reads it, so
+the drift stays invisible.
+
+**Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_set_aside_register` fails
+a scored round whose declared register does not match the one recomputed from
+the verdicts.
+
+## Two blocks — execution and record (BLOCKING)
+
+A plan carries two kinds of content, and they answer to different gates.
+
+| Block | Items | A defect there |
+|---|---|---|
+| `execution` | steps, options, dependencies, validations, rollbacks, design prep, variation points, the selected direction | blocks the start |
+| `record` | requirement coverage rows, and the approval dispositions and decision references they carry | **does not block.** It is recorded and becomes the next run's input |
+
+The record is the plan's account of itself: which brief line each stage answers,
+what the user decided, which clarification a deviation rests on. It has to be
+accurate and it is still verified — but a wrong sentence in it does not make the
+next stage unsafe to start, and treating it as though it did is what kept a plan
+whose executable content had already settled from ever being approved.
+
+**A requirement that nothing builds is not a record defect.** A coverage row with
+`status: gap` or a `blocked C-NNN` blocks through `gateBlockedBy: coverage-gap`,
+which reads the rows directly and is untouched by this split. What stops blocking
+is a verdict about the row's *accuracy* — a citation that resolves to the wrong
+stage, a disposition recorded without its confirmation.
+
+**Enforced:** `scripts/okstra_ctl/plan_items.py` `_item_block` assigns the block
+at extraction, `okstra plan-items seed` carries it onto the row, and
+`validators/validate-run.py` `_plan_item_gate_class` downgrades a `record`
+blocker to `has-dissent`. `_independent_coverage_blockers` is the separate
+channel that keeps a genuine gap blocking.
+
+## Gate scope — the stage about to start (BLOCKING)
+
+The plan covers every stage; implementation runs one at a time. An item blocks
+approval only when it has standing over the stage that is about to start:
+
+- **`in-scope`** — one of the item's stages is `ready` or `active`, or the item
+  belongs to no stage at all. It blocks.
+- **`observed`** — the item's stages are all `done`. It does not block. A frozen
+  stage's defect cannot be fixed by planning at all: the Stage Ledger forbids
+  editing its commands, so an item that blocks on one blocks forever.
+- **`deferred`** — the item's stages are all still `blocked`. It does not block;
+  the stage it judges has not been reached.
+
+An item with no `stageScope` is `in-scope` on purpose. `P-Opt-*`, `P-Var-*`,
+`P-Dep-*`, `P-Rb-*` and `P-Dir-1` judge the plan as a whole, and scoping them out
+would stop an unrequested-work verdict from blocking a start. So does a coverage
+or validation row whose plan has not filled `stageRefs` yet — an absent scope is
+read as every stage, which is the safe direction.
+
+**Nothing is dropped.** An out-of-scope blocker becomes `has-dissent`, so the
+gate reads `passed-with-dissent` rather than `passed` and the reader can see that
+something is outstanding. `gate.items[]` carries the bucket for each item; a
+scoped-out defect and a real consensus would otherwise look identical in the
+record.
+
+**Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_stage_scope_bucket` and
+`_plan_item_gate_class`, which `_recompute_plan_body_gate` and
+`_gate_summary_item` both call — the scoping cannot apply to the gate value and
+not to the summary the round protocol records.
+
 ## Plan-body verdict semantics
 
 The verdict tokens `AGREE` / `DISAGREE` / `SUPPLEMENT` are reused, but their meaning is plan-specific:
@@ -222,9 +346,11 @@ CLI-wrapper calls follow the planned execution surface after
 consume only `modelExecutionValue`. A missing or invalid invocation contract blocks the
 round before any host or provider process starts.
 
-1. Lead runs `okstra plan-items extract --data <data.json> --output <state>/plan-items-....json`, places the persisted `items[]` verbatim in every verifier prompt with the compact `subject` and lossless `payload`, then runs `okstra plan-items validate --data <data.json> --items <state>/plan-items-....json`. Dispatch only after that exact-match validation succeeds.
+1. Lead runs `okstra plan-items prepare --narrative <report-writer-narrative.md> --run-manifest <run-manifest>`, places the fixed output of `okstra plan-items prompt --run-manifest <run-manifest>` verbatim in every verifier prompt, then runs `okstra plan-items validate-prepared --narrative <report-writer-narrative.md> --run-manifest <run-manifest>`. Python resolves the one convergence-owned state path from that run identity. Dispatch only after that exact-match validation succeeds.
 
-   **Then seed the landing table (BLOCKING):** `okstra plan-items seed --data <data.json>`. `apply-verdicts` in step 8 refuses a verdict whose item has no `planBodyVerification.planItems[]` row, and the report writer leaves that array empty — §5.5.9 is a lead substep that runs after Phase 6 authoring, so nothing before this step has filled it. The seed is idempotent by id and never touches an existing row, so it is safe to re-run between rounds and after a self-fix re-extraction. Skipping it makes step 8 fail with `the report's planBodyVerification has no row for [...]`, which reads as a transcription bug rather than a missing step.
+   **Then seed the landing table (BLOCKING):** `okstra plan-items seed --narrative <report-writer-narrative.md> --state <plan-body-verification.json> --run-manifest <run-manifest.json>`. `apply-verdicts` in step 8 refuses a verdict whose item has no `planBodyVerification.planItems[]` row. The report writer never owns that state, so the deterministic seed is the only creator of its rows. The seed is idempotent by id and never touches an existing row, so it is safe to re-run between rounds and after a self-fix re-extraction. Skipping it makes step 8 fail with `plan-body state has no row for [...]`.
+
+   **`--run-manifest` is what scopes the gate to the stage you are starting.** Seed uses it to record `planBodyVerification.stageLedger` — a `{stage: status}` snapshot in the Stage Ledger's own `done` / `active` / `ready` / `blocked` vocabulary. Without it the block carries no ledger, and the gate falls back to judging every stage at once, which is the behaviour described in the paragraph below and the reason this flag exists.
 2. For each analyser worker in the roster (`claude`, `codex`, and `antigravity` if opted in), lead constructs a reverify prompt using the template in §"Plan-body reverify prompt" below.
 3. Dispatch uses the same wrapper infrastructure as finding convergence, so the `--role-slug` is the same canonical `<role>-worker` that convergence uses — not a round-specific slug. Result file path: `runs/<task-type>/worker-results/<role>-worker-plan-verify-r<N>-implementation-planning-<seq>.md` (e.g. `codex-worker-plan-verify-r1-implementation-planning-003.md`). **`<seq>` is the report's sequence** — the one in this run's `final-report-<task-type>-<seq>` filename, NOT the `workerResults` sequence the initial analysis results carry. The two are equal in most runs and diverge in some (`reports: 004` alongside `workerResults: 005` is a real case), and provenance globs on the report's. Picking the other one makes `_validate_plan_body_verdict_provenance` report that no result file exists while the file is sitting in the directory. The `-worker-` token is load-bearing twice over: §"Plan-body reverify prompt" requires the same anchor headers as convergence, whose `**Audit sidecar path:**` is derived by `okstra_ctl.worker_artifact_paths.audit_sidecar_rel()` inserting `-audit-` after that token — a slug without it makes the header underivable and the helper raises. Record each `planItems[].verdicts[].worker` as the same `<role>-worker` string, because provenance compares it to this filename's prefix. **Enforced:** `tests/contract/test_reverify_dispatch_anchors.py` derives the sidecar from the documented name and re-extracts the prefix the provenance resolver uses.
    **Verdict provenance (BLOCKING).** Every verdict recorded in `planItems[].verdicts[]` MUST trace back to a dispatch that actually returned a result file at the path above. The whole gate — classification, self-fix eligibility, promotion, `gateBlockedBy` — is computed from these votes, so an unbacked vote lets the round be skipped while the gate still reads `passed`. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_body_verdict_provenance` fails any `verdicts[].worker` with no matching `<worker>-plan-verify-r<N>-<task-type>-<seq>.md` result file. Recording a `verification-error` for a dispatch that produced no result is the correct way to represent a failed worker — inventing an `AGREE` is a contract violation.
@@ -237,7 +363,9 @@ round before any host or provider process starts.
    - `partial-consensus` — majority `AGREE`, dissenting `DISAGREE` recorded.
    - `dissent-isolated` — only one worker `DISAGREE`s, others `AGREE` — treat as `partial-consensus` for gate purposes; record dissent. (Distinct from finding-convergence `worker-unique`, which means the *opposite*: only one worker AGREEs. Plan-body classifications use this dedicated label to avoid the collision.)
    - `majority-disagree` — a *majority* of analysers `DISAGREE` (majority needs ≥2 participating non-error votes; rollback-ordering `DISAGREE(d)` votes are advisory and excluded from the tally), OR any single-vote-blocking kind fires: one `DISAGREE(a)` on any item other than a `P-Var-*` one — where kind `a` never blocks on one vote and takes a majority like `b` / `e` — or one `DISAGREE(f)` on a `P-Req-*` item (see §"Single-vote-blocking kinds"). This classification **blocks approval**.
-   - `needs-reverify` — a single-vote-blocking kind fired but the item has **fewer than 2 participating non-error votes**, i.e. the lone dissent was never cross-verified because its peer returned `verification-error`. A single-vote-blocking kind means "one *confirmed* DISAGREE is enough"; an unconfirmed one is not, and on a `P-Var-*` item none fires at all — its kind `a` never blocks on one vote and takes a majority like `b` / `e`. This does **not** block approval — blocking on it would make a worker failure produce a stricter gate than a healthy roster, the same paradox the ≥2-vote majority rule already rules out. The item is re-dispatched in the next round (step 7); if it survives the round budget it is promoted per step 8 with a Statement that says verification never completed. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_classify_plan_item_gate` returns `needs-reverify` for this shape and `_recompute_plan_body_gate` folds it into `passed-with-dissent`.
+   - `needs-reverify` — one of two shapes the round could not settle.
+     - **An even split on a blocking kind.** The majority test is strict, so a panel splitting evenly (1-AGREE / 1-DISAGREE, 2-2, …) reaches neither `full-consensus` nor `majority-disagree`. Until this shape existed it folded into `has-dissent` and the gate passed: two verifiers read the same plan, disagreed on a defect that is not advisory, and the split was recorded and never acted on. An even panel is not only the two-analyser roster — one `UNVERIFIABLE` or one lost dispatch makes any roster even for that item. Re-dispatch those items and record the votes with `--round 2`; a split that survives that round becomes `majority-disagree` and goes to the user, because nothing further is going to settle it. **The round is not optional**: `needs-reverify` folds into `passed-with-dissent`, so without the re-verification this classification would be a label and nothing else. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_unresolved_tie_was_reverified` fails a gate declared over a tie that was never re-verified, and `_classify_plan_item_gate` promotes a tie carrying a round-2 verdict to `majority-disagree`.
+     - **A lone dissent nobody cross-verified** — a single-vote-blocking kind fired but the item has **fewer than 2 participating non-error votes**, i.e. the lone dissent was never cross-verified because its peer returned `verification-error`. A single-vote-blocking kind means "one *confirmed* DISAGREE is enough"; an unconfirmed one is not, and on a `P-Var-*` item none fires at all — its kind `a` never blocks on one vote and takes a majority like `b` / `e`. This does **not** block approval — blocking on it would make a worker failure produce a stricter gate than a healthy roster, the same paradox the ≥2-vote majority rule already rules out. The item is re-dispatched in the next round (step 7); if it survives the round budget it is promoted per step 8 with a Statement that says verification never completed. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_classify_plan_item_gate` returns `needs-reverify` for this shape and `_recompute_plan_body_gate` folds it into `passed-with-dissent`.
    - `contested` only meaningful when `maxRounds > 1`; at default `maxRounds=1`, fold any unresolved item into `partial-consensus`.
 5. Gate result resolution:
    - any `majority-disagree` item present AND `gating=true` → `blocked-by-disagreement`
@@ -258,7 +386,7 @@ round before any host or provider process starts.
    **Record the cause, not just the outcome.** The gate value names the outcome; `planBodyVerification.gateBlockedBy` (array) names every input that blocked it — `majority-disagree`, `coverage-gap`, `non-result`. Two independent inputs can block: a `majority-disagree` plan item, and a Requirement Coverage `gap` / `blocked C-NNN` row (`prompts/profiles/implementation-planning.md` §"Requirement Coverage"). A coverage-only block still renders as `blocked-by-disagreement` because that is the only blocking non-abort value, so **without `gateBlockedBy` the report asserts a worker disagreement that never happened** and the reader hunts for a dissent that does not exist. Leave the array empty for a passing gate. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_gate_blocked_by` cross-checks the declared causes against the recorded verdicts and coverage rows, and fails a passing gate that has a blocking coverage row — the coverage rule was prose-only before.
 
    **A coverage row citing this run's own `C-NNN` is not an independent blocker.** When a coverage row's `blocked C-NNN` points at a clarification that step 8 below promoted from a `majority-disagree` item in *this same run*, that blocker is already counted once as the plan item. Counting it again as a coverage gap makes the run block on a clarification it just authored, and the row carries into the next run as a fresh blocker — the Requirement Coverage ↔ Clarification cycle. Such rows are excluded from `coverage-gap`. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_independent_coverage_blockers`.
-6. Lead records `planBodyVerification.participatingAnalysers` as `{rostered, voting}` — how many analysers the roster carried, and how many actually returned a non-error vote. The gate arithmetic is unchanged, but a shrunken roster loosens it silently: with two participating analysers a 1-AGREE / 1-DISAGREE split is a tie, so it never reaches `majority-disagree` and the dissent passes as `dissent-isolated`. A reader comparing two runs' gate values cannot see that without this pair. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_participating_analysers` recomputes `voting` from the recorded verdicts and fails a declared figure the table denies. That pair still counts only *whether* a worker voted: an analyser that answers the same verdict to every item is carried in `voting` as a third opinion while contributing no refutation signal, so the gate reads as a three-way cross-check backed by two. **Enforced (advisory):** `validators/validate-run.py` `_detect_uniform_verifier` reports any worker whose every vote in the round was one verdict, with its item count — it does not fail the run, because a unanimous round is also a legitimate outcome and no ratio separates the two reliably. **Copy every such warning into `planBodyVerification.uniformVerifiers[]`** as `{worker, verdict, itemCount}`; the renderer prints it directly beneath the gate value in both the Markdown and HTML reports. A warning that exists only in the scorer's JSON is not a warning the report's reader ever sees, and the gate line alone reads as a wider cross-check than the round actually was.
+6. `okstra plan-items complete-round --run-manifest <current-run-manifest.json>` derives `planBodyVerification.participatingAnalysers` from the current assigned roster and persisted votes, then atomically records the completed round. The gate arithmetic is unchanged, but a shrunken roster changes what the round can settle: with two participating analysers a 1-AGREE / 1-DISAGREE split is a tie, so it reaches neither consensus nor `majority-disagree` and the item has to go back for a round (see `needs-reverify` above). **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_participating_analysers` recomputes `voting` from the recorded verdicts and fails a declared figure the table denies. `validators/validate-run.py` `_detect_uniform_verifier` remains advisory; do not copy its JSON output into state.
 
    **Check each verifier's verdict distribution before the next round.** Read the `okstra plan-verify` warnings alongside the gate value. Two shapes mean the roster was narrower than it looks: a verifier whose every vote was one token, and a verifier that returned no vote for items it was assigned. Both are contract violations of the adversarial posture, not stylistic preferences — the verifier is told to open the cited evidence and judge it.
 
@@ -266,19 +394,19 @@ round before any host or provider process starts.
 
    **How the corrective round is recorded.** The first prompt was dispatched, so it is immutable — `--replace-undispatched` refuses it, correctly. Materialize the correction under a NEW `--invocation-id` and a new prompt path. Before linking its result, retire the first attempt's link: `okstra agent-prompt reject-result --run-manifest <path> --dispatch-id <first dispatch id> --superseded-by <corrective dispatch id> --reason "<what was wrong with the returned result>"`. Without that step the corrective `link-result` fails with `agent result is already linked to another dispatch`, which is how a worker that ran for twenty minutes and wrote a good result ends up unrecordable. Nothing is deleted: the rejected link stays in `agentResultLinks` carrying `supersededBy` and `rejectionReason`, so the ledger shows both attempts and why the second exists.
 
-   Then lead writes `runs/<task-type>/state/plan-body-verification-<task-type>-<seq>.json` (schema below), **appending this round** — one new `roundHistory[]` entry plus this round's votes on each verified item's `planItems[].rounds[]`. The file accumulates across rounds; it is never truncated to the latest one. After `okstra plan-verify` exits 0, lead sets that new round's `completedAt` to the current ISO 8601 UTC time exactly once; a prior round's `completedAt` is immutable. Lead then populates `### 5.5.9 Plan Body Verification` in the final report's data.json (`implementationPlanning.planBodyVerification`, schema `schemas/final-report-v2.0.schema.json`; template at `templates/reports/final-report-v2.template.md`). The §5.5.9 body is **grouped by plan item**: `planItems[]`, each carrying its `id`, its plain-language `subject` (rendered as the item heading), an optional `sourceSection`, an optional `clarificationId` (the `C-<N>` this item blocks on when `majority-disagree`), and a `verdicts[]` list (`worker / verdict / breakageKind / note`) — one verdict row per worker under that item. The renderer prints three fixed legends (gate values, verdict tokens, breakage kinds a–f) so the reader can decode every cell without opening this spec. The older flat `#### Verdict details` table (`Plan item / Worker / …`, one row per plan-item × worker pair) is superseded by the grouped layout — it hid *what* each vote was about behind a bare `P-*` ID; the subject heading is the fix. The validator's `Plan Body Verification` + `Gate result:` substring checks still gate this section.
+   Then run `okstra plan-items complete-round --state <plan-body-verification.json> --run-manifest <current-run-manifest.json> --round <N>`. Python appends one immutable round history entry, records each verified item's votes, derives the current projection from the actual assigned roster, and stamps `completedAt` after the preceding verification command succeeds. The file accumulates across rounds; it is never truncated to the latest one. Report assembly later projects the completed nested `planBodyVerification` into the final record.
 7. **Self-fix loop (one rewrite, targeting planner-fixable defects).** After round 1, lead may run one report-writer rewrite when at least one `majority-disagree` item has a majority of its `DISAGREE` verdicts at `fixability == planner-fixable`. The targeted re-verification after that rewrite is round 2. After round 2, stop automatic self-fix regardless of outcome. Classify every remaining item as `user-decision`, `noncritical-dissent`, or `correctness-critical`. A second automatic self-fix is a contract violation. The fixed order is initial verification → one planner self-fix → targeted re-verification → user gate.
-   - **Group the targets by cause before instructing (BLOCKING).** Blocked items are usually several derivatives of one defect — one constant declared twice, one responsibility given two owners — and the coverage rows that cite them fail as a consequence, not independently. Lead MUST partition this round's targets into cause groups and instruct each group as **"remove this cause"**, naming the derivatives it accounts for. **Handing report-writer a bare item list is forbidden**: patched one at a time, each correction leaves the sibling sections still asserting the old value, so the next round re-finds the same family and the budget drains without converging. Record the partition in `planBodyVerification.selfFixGroups[]` (`round`, `causeSummary`, `itemIds`). One group per item is a legitimate outcome only when the items genuinely share no cause — recorded that way, it is a visible diagnosis rather than a skipped one. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_self_fix_grouping` requires the partition, ties `selfFixRoundsApplied` to the highest recorded round, and fails any corrected item that belongs to no group.
+   - **Group the targets by cause before instructing (BLOCKING).** Blocked items are usually several derivatives of one defect. Lead partitions this round's targets into cause groups and instructs each group as **"remove this cause"**, naming the derivatives it accounts for. The convergence command owns the persisted group and correction fields; the lead does not edit JSON state.
    - lead instructs report-writer to rewrite the items in each cause group (NOT a full draft regeneration; procedure in [report-writer](./report-writer.md) §"Self-fix rewrite").
    - missing or weak `P-Prep-*` contracts are repaired by adding kind-specific inline detail or an AI-prepared PREP item with a concrete proposal. Facts that require user or external authority remain `blocked` and keep their request material; never invent those facts during self-fix.
    - **Drop plan items whose element the round deleted.** A self-fix rewrite may remove a plan element (a validation check, a rollback row). `P-*` ids are positional, so a deletion shifts every later row and silently re-points surviving verdicts at their neighbours — and a verdict recorded against a removed element keeps blocking a gate while being unfindable in the plan, so reading the plan never reveals the cause. After each round, re-extract plan items with `okstra plan-items extract` and re-verify any item whose `subject` no longer matches; never carry the old vote forward across a shift. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_verdicts_match_current_subjects` (re-pointing) and `_validate_plan_item_extraction_completeness` (dangling ids).
    - **Classify each cause group before instructing it (BLOCKING).** A group is either an *authoring* defect — the plan says something wrong, incomplete, or self-contradictory, which self-fix owns — or a *citation* defect, where the plan points at an analysis artifact incorrectly. Only the first is self-fix work. For the second the finding already exists and already went through convergence, so the fix is to re-cite the converged artifact; instructing report-writer to re-derive the fact means the author reads the source material and produces a **finding that never went through convergence**, which the plan then carries as if it had. That is the role boundary the lead contract draws ("keep analysis, execution, verification, and report authoring responsibilities distinct; return defects to the role that owns them"), and report-writer is authoring-only by its own contract. `P-Req-*` items with breakage kind `f` are where this goes wrong most often: the question is usually whether a coverage row points correctly at something already measured, not whether the measurement is right. State the classification in the group's instruction so the author knows which of the two it is being asked to do.
    - **A verdict older than the last self-fix is not a verdict (BLOCKING).** A verdict cast in round 1 judged the text before the only automatic rewrite. Once that rewrite runs, the judgement is about a plan that no longer exists. `--round <N>` on `apply-verdicts` stamps each row, and `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_verdict_rounds_outlive_self_fix` fails any non-carried item whose verdict round is at or before `selfFixRoundsApplied`. Before declaring the gate, every item still holding a pre-self-fix verdict MUST be re-verified in round 2.
-   - lead re-runs plan-body verification (focused on the corrected items + adjacent items the rewrite touched, plus any `needs-reverify` items whose peer failed to vote last round). After re-verification, overwrite `planItems[].verdicts` with the new verdicts. **The round's verdicts MUST be transcribed into `planBodyVerification.planItems[].verdicts` in the final report's data.json before the gate is declared** — the gate is re-derived from that table, so declaring a gate over an empty one leaves it unauditable. **Enforced:** `_validate_round_recorded_verdicts`. Transcribe with `okstra plan-items collect-verdicts --result <worker>=<path> … --items <plan-items.json> --output <verdicts.json>` then `okstra plan-items apply-verdicts --data <data.json> --verdicts <verdicts.json> --round <N>`, never with a per-round script: the CLI reads the response shape this section fixes and **fails** on an assigned item the worker left unanswered, on a verdict for an item outside the queue, and on a `DISAGREE` with no breakage kind. A hand-written regex reports none of those — it drops them, and the round is then scored on a table that silently does not match the queue.
-   - for an item whose `majority-disagree` was resolved by self-fix, record `self-fixed in round <N>: <what was fixed>` in `planItems[].selfFixNote`. A resolved item does not create a clarification.
+   - Lead re-runs plan-body verification, then records each worker Markdown result through `okstra plan-items apply-verdicts --state <plan-body-verification.json> --result <worker>=<result.md> --round <N>`. Score the result with `okstra plan-verify --narrative <report-writer-narrative.md> --state <plan-body-verification.json>`, then call `okstra plan-items complete-round --state <plan-body-verification.json> --run-manifest <current-run-manifest.json> --round <N>`. These commands fail on an assigned item the worker left unanswered, on a verdict for an item outside the queue, and on a duplicate worker result.
+   - For a self-fix, record the correction through the typed convergence command rather than writing `selfFixNote` or `selfFixGroups` JSON. A resolved item does not create a clarification.
    - **Each round is a worker batch.** Before dispatching round N ≥ 2, reclaim the previous round's completed verifiers exactly as at any other batch boundary ([okstra-lead-contract](./okstra-lead-contract.md) "Run-scoped worker-resource lifecycle") and emit `PROGRESS: phase-batch-cleanup panes=<n>`, then announce the round with `PROGRESS: phase-5.5.9-plan-verify round=<N> items=<count>`. Saying a round will "reuse" the previous verifiers and then dispatching under fresh names leaves every prior round holding its panes — five rounds of that is what exhausts the pane budget and blocks the next dispatch. **Enforced:** `validators/validate_session_conformance.py` `_check_plan_verify_cleanup_checkpoints` requires both lines once the state file records two or more rounds.
-   - **Round completion.** A round is complete only after the renderer has run on the corrected data.json, lead has appended the round to the state file per step 6, lead has reconciled instructed groups against applied corrections — every `itemIds` entry either carries a `selfFixNote` or is still recorded as broken — **`okstra plan-verify --report <report>` exits 0** (step 5), and lead has then set that round's immutable `completedAt`. A round left with a non-zero exit carries its defect into the next round's inputs, which is how a mis-scored gate survives a whole self-fix budget. A round that was instructed but never rendered has not happened, and counting it inflates the budget that gates promotion. The state-file append is not optional bookkeeping: the next re-verification overwrites data.json's `planItems[].verdicts`, so a round that never reached `roundHistory[]` leaves no record anywhere of what it blocked on — which is the whole reason this file exists. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_body_state_rounds` requires one `roundHistory[]` entry per round `1..roundCount`, each carrying its own `gateResult` and cited by at least one item's `rounds[]`, and requires the file's `selfFixRoundsApplied` to match the report's. For a resolved correctness-critical user response, `_validate_target_round_causality` additionally requires the cited round's `completedAt` to be after every linked canonical `user-decision-required` event and no later than every linked canonical `user-decision-evaluated` event.
-   - **Loop termination.** Lead — not the report-writer worker — records the round count in `planBodyVerification.selfFixRoundsApplied` at each round's end, and why the loop stopped in `planBodyVerification.selfFixStopReason`. The count must equal the highest `round` in `selfFixGroups[]`, so it is derivable from recorded work rather than self-reported. A user-directed correction does not consume the automatic self-fix limit, and a verification failure after that correction does not restart the automatic loop:
+   - **Round completion.** A round is complete only after `okstra plan-verify` exits 0 and `okstra plan-items complete-round` succeeds. A round left with a non-zero exit carries its defect into the next round's inputs. Report assembly and rendering occur only after the convergence state is terminal. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_body_state_rounds` requires one stored round per round number and a corresponding item vote.
+   - **Loop termination.** The convergence command owns the round count and stop reason; the lead does not write either JSON field. A user-directed correction does not consume the automatic self-fix limit, and a verification failure after that correction does not restart the automatic loop:
      - `all-resolved` — no planner-fixable `majority-disagree` item remains. Exit.
      - `no-progress` — the round resolved **zero** planner-fixable items relative to the previous round. Exit even with budget left: the same rewrite would repeat. Newly *introduced* defects count against progress, so a rewrite that trades one defect for another stops the loop rather than churning. A round that re-targets only what the previous round left unresolved is this same conclusion reached one dispatch earlier — exit on it under this reason rather than paying for the round that proves it. **Enforced (advisory):** `validators/validate-run.py` `_detect_self_fix_recurrence` warns on that shape and names this stop reason.
      - `max-rounds-reached` — `selfFixRoundsApplied == selfFixMaxRounds`. Exit.
@@ -291,10 +419,10 @@ round before any host or provider process starts.
    - `Statement` summarising the disagreement and the worker breakage `<kind>`
    - `Kind` chosen per the standard policy (usually `decision` for option-level conflicts, `data-point` for path/symbol mismatches)
    - `Blocks=approval`
-   - the item's `planItems[].clarificationId` set to that `C-<N>` (1:1 link). `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_body_clarification_matching` recomputes each item's class and fails when a majority-disagree item's `clarificationId` is missing, dangling, or points at a non-`approval` row.
+   - the report record's `planItems[].clarificationRefs[]` reaching that `C-<N>`. Under contract v3 the report record carries the **plural** field and the v3.0 schema forbids `clarificationId` on a plan item; report assembly derives the refs from the activity ledger's `clarificationRefs[]` + `planItemIds[]`, so record the decision through `okstra approval-decision` rather than writing the link by hand. The lead-owned state file keeps the singular `clarificationId`. `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_body_clarification_matching` recomputes each item's class and fails when a majority-disagree item reaches no clarification, or reaches one that is missing or not `blocks: approval`.
    - set `approvalContext.classification` to `user-decision` for a majority `needs-user-input` item, `correctness-critical` for `DISAGREE(a)`, `DISAGREE(f)` on `P-Req-*`, or an independent Requirement Coverage blocker, and `noncritical-dissent` for another surviving majority disagreement.
-   - populate `approvalContext.planItemIds`, `activityIds`, `unblockCondition`, and `recommendedDisposition`. `planItemIds` carries the **extracted item ids verbatim** — the ordinal form the extractor issues (`P-Opt-1`, `P-Step-1.1`), never the human label the plan prose uses for the same thing ("Option C", "Completion B"). The letter label is what that item's `subject` records (§"subject" above: `P-Opt-1` → "Option A: …"), so cite the id and let the subject carry the name; a label written into `planItemIds` reads as an unknown plan item and fails the run. Every option carries a `disposition`: `select` only for `user-decision`, `accept-risk` only for `noncritical-dissent`, and `request-revision` / `reject` for any classification. `correctness-critical` never offers or records `accept-risk`. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_approval_context`.
-   - **Self-fix exhaustion is not risk acceptance.** A `noncritical-dissent` item remains blocking until the user explicitly selects `accept-risk`. Record the user's non-empty original text and the `user-decision-required` / `user-decision-evaluated` activity references in `approvalContext.resolution`; only then does `validators/validate-run.py` `_resolved_noncritical_dissent_ids` let `_is_dissent_downgraded` fold it into `passed-with-dissent`.
+   - record the decision through `okstra approval-decision open`. Each option carries `disposition`, exactly one `reach`, and optional `scopeEffects`. The activity ledger carries affected `planItemIds` and `clarificationRefs`; the approval row never copies those backtrace IDs. `select` is allowed only for `user-decision`, `accept-risk` only for `noncritical-dissent`, and `request-revision` / `reject` for any classification. `correctness-critical` never offers or records `accept-risk`. **Enforced:** `scripts/okstra_ctl/approval_decisions.py` and report assembly.
+   - **Self-fix exhaustion is not risk acceptance.** A `noncritical-dissent` item remains blocking until the user explicitly selects `accept-risk`. Record the user's non-empty original text and existing activity check references through `okstra approval-decision resolve`; report assembly derives the report `resolution`.
    - **Correctness-critical defects cannot be waived.** After the user-directed correction, targeted re-verification of every linked item MUST record only `AGREE` or an acceptable `SUPPLEMENT`, and any independent Requirement Coverage blocker MUST be removed before the row becomes `resolved`. A `DISAGREE` or `verification-error` returns it to `open`. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_correctness_resolution`.
    - When a correctness-critical `planner-fixable` item is promoted, its `Statement` MUST state "planner self-fix attempted but unresolved" and name the stop reason. `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_self_fix_before_clarification` fails when a planner-fixable majority item is promoted while the budget is not exhausted — it requires `selfFixRoundsApplied >= 1` **and** `selfFixStopReason` in `{no-progress, max-rounds-reached}`, so neither `all-resolved` nor `not-attempted` can excuse a promotion.
    - Approval state transitions are fixed:
@@ -303,25 +431,46 @@ round before any host or provider process starts.
      - `answered → open` when application or checking fails
      - `open → obsolete` only when a plan change removes the question
      `open` and `answered` continue to block approval; only `resolved` and `obsolete` are non-blocking. A user-directed correction does not consume the automatic self-fix limit, and a failed check does not restart the automatic loop.
-   - A terminal row may preserve its original dissent classification only from audited history. Keep superseded votes in `state/plan-body-verification-implementation-planning-<seq>.json`; `validators/validate-run.py` `_historical_plan_item_evidence` recomputes criticality from the recorded `DISAGREE(a|f)` tokens and does not trust the row's classification alone. Every referenced `user-decision-required` / `user-decision-evaluated` activity must cite exactly that row's `C-NNN` and exactly the linked `approvalContext.planItemIds` set. The evaluated activity occurs after every required activity, has `outcome: resolved`, records at least one command whose every `exitCode` is `0`, points `resultPath` at the matching plan-body state artifact, and cites exactly one `plan-body-verification:round-N` evidence token. Round `N` is later than the recorded blocking round; its state votes are all `AGREE` or `SUPPLEMENT`, and they exactly match the final-report verdicts. Its immutable `completedAt` is later than every referenced required activity's canonical event timestamp and no later than every referenced evaluated activity's canonical event timestamp, so an older successful round cannot be relabelled as the response check. This user-response round is recorded in `roundHistory[]` but does not increment `selfFixRoundsApplied` or create another automatic `verification-round-completed` activity. Only the exact round token in `resolution.checkRefs` of a resolved `correctness-critical` row receives that exclusion; the referenced resolved `user-decision-evaluated` activity must match the row's exact `C-NNN` and plan-item set. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_approval_activity_refs`, `_validate_correctness_resolution`, and `_validate_target_round_causality`, plus `validators/validate_session_conformance.py` `_resolved_correctness_reverification_rounds` and `_check_activity_round_counts`. When an independent coverage-only blocker is corrected, keep the `C-NNN` in the now non-blocking Requirement Coverage row's `decisionRefs` and in the matching state-sidecar plan item's `clarificationId`; that item must have no historical blocking dissent and must participate in a round whose `gateBlockedBy` contains `coverage-gap`. A run-wide `coverage-gap` without this item-level `C-NNN` link cannot classify another row. `obsolete` is valid only after current evidence shows that the question or blocker disappeared, or the linked item is historical and removed; a current linked item remains active even when audited history preserves an older classification.
+   - A terminal row preserves its original dissent classification only from the convergence-owned state history. Every `user-decision-required` / `user-decision-evaluated` activity cites the row's `C-NNN` in `clarificationRefs` and affected plan items in `planItemIds`. A resolved decision names only existing `A-NNN` checks. Report assembly validates those links and derives the report backtraces; it does not accept copied IDs from the approval ledger. When an independent coverage-only blocker is corrected, keep the `C-NNN` in the non-blocking Requirement Coverage row's `decisionRefs`. `obsolete` is valid only after current evidence shows that the question or blocker disappeared.
 9. Approval lives in the report record `frontmatter.approved` field — there is no in-body marker line. The user may set it to `true` (via `--approve` or the in-session wizard) only when the Gate result is `passed` or `passed-with-dissent`. **Enforced:** run-prep (`scripts/okstra_ctl/run.py` `_validate_approved_plan`) fail-closes an `approved: true` plan whose record carries a blocking `gateResult` or an open/answered `Blocks: approval` clarification row, and `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_body_gate_recompute` rejects a declared `gateResult` healthier than the recorded votes.
 
 ## `plan-body-verification-<task-type>-<seq>.json` schema
 
-**Which file is authoritative for what.** These two representations are *not* required to agree, and a lead that tries to make them match is doing unnecessary work:
+**Take the path from the launch prompt, never from this filename (BLOCKING).**
+The run's `## Run Paths` block renders `Plan-body verification state:` with the
+exact path, and `scripts/okstra_ctl/paths.py` is what computed it. Do not build
+the name from the pattern in this heading: a run carries **two seq families** —
+`state` (team-state, convergence, lead-events, this file) and `reports` (the
+final report and its siblings) — and they diverge whenever the two advance at
+different rates. Writing this file under the report's seq puts it where nothing
+looks: `validators/validate_session_conformance.py` resolves it from the
+team-state name, so the round count reads as 0 and
+`verification-round-completed count must match automatic plan-body rounds=0`
+fails a run whose rounds all ran.
+
+**Which file is authoritative for what.** Contract v3 keeps both views in one convergence-owned state file before publication:
 
 | | records | what a self-fix round does to it |
 |---|---|---|
-| `state/plan-body-verification-<task-type>-<seq>.json` | the round-by-round history, including rounds later superseded | **appends** — a new `roundHistory[]` entry and new `planItems[].rounds[]` votes; earlier rounds are left untouched, and this is the only place they survive |
-| `data.json` `implementationPlanning.planBodyVerification` | the **final** state after the self-fix loop | **overwrites** — each re-verification replaces `planItems[].verdicts` |
+| `state/plan-body-verification-<task-type>-<seq>.json` top-level `planItems[]` / `roundHistory[]` | round-by-round history, including superseded rounds | **appends** — earlier rounds remain immutable |
+| the same file's `planBodyVerification` | final state after the self-fix loop | **overwrites** — each re-verification replaces current `planItems[].verdicts` |
+| `data.json` `implementationPlanning.planBodyVerification` | published projection | report assembly copies the validated final state once |
 
-**The gate is computed from data.json.** The state file is the audit trail: after a successful self-fix loop the two legitimately differ (the sidecar shows what *each* round blocked on, data.json shows only the resolved result), and that difference is the record of the fix working. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_body_state_file` requires the file to exist with `schemaVersion` / `planItems` / `roundHistory` once a round has run, then `_validate_plan_body_state_rounds` checks the round coverage described in §"Round protocol" step 7. Neither compares a gate value to data.json — the two views are supposed to differ, and demanding equality would fail every run whose self-fix loop worked.
+**The gate is computed from the nested final projection.** The top-level audit history may differ because it preserves superseded rounds. Report assembly copies the final projection rather than asking the report writer to transcribe it. **Enforced:** `validators/validate-run.py` `_validate_plan_body_state_file` requires the audit keys once a round has run, and `scripts/okstra_ctl/report_assembly.py` reads only the convergence-owned `planBodyVerification` projection.
 
 The per-round structures mirror the finding-convergence state artifact ([convergence](./convergence.md) §"Convergence State Artifact"): `roundHistory[]` is the round-level ledger, and each item's `rounds[]` is its per-round vote history — the same split as that file's `roundHistory[]` / `findings[].rounds[]`.
 
 ```json
 {
   "schemaVersion": "1.1",
+  "owner": "convergence",
+  "planBodyVerification": {
+    "roundCount": 2,
+    "gateResult": "passed-with-dissent",
+    "gateBlockedBy": [],
+    "planItems": [],
+    "dissentLog": []
+  },
   "phase": "implementation-planning",
   "effectiveMaxRounds": 1,
   "gating": true,
@@ -417,9 +566,35 @@ Required prompt anchor headers are identical to finding convergence (see [conver
 The [convergence](./convergence.md) §"Required reverify output contract"
 applies unchanged: append it verbatim after the response format below.
 
+The prompt-body contract check runs on every `analysis`-audience prompt, not
+just the critic's, so this round needs the same two lines the critic's
+instructions need ([convergence](./convergence.md) §"What the critic
+task-instructions file MUST contain"): a `**Prompt Delivery Mode:**` header and,
+under `## Inputs`, exactly one `- Primary analysis packet:` line whose path ends
+in `analysis-packet.md`. The literal label and the backticks are what the check
+matches — a bare path or a reworded label counts as zero. They are in the
+template below; keep them when you fill it in.
+
+Carrying the packet does not license re-analysis. It is there so the verifier
+can resolve a plan item back to the requirement it claims to satisfy; the
+posture in §"Adversarial plan-body posture" still applies, and this round does
+not revisit the requirements themselves.
+
+Omitting either line fails `okstra team dispatch --dispatch-kind
+reverify-planbody-r<n>` before any process starts, reported as `<task-type>
+prompt contract: <worker>: exactly one Primary analysis packet path is required
+(found 0)`. Fix the instructions file and re-materialize with
+`--replace-undispatched` rather than editing the published prompt.
+
 ````
 Perform plan-body verification for <task-key> (round 1).
 
+**Prompt Delivery Mode:** eager-include
+
+## Inputs
+
+- Primary analysis packet: `<path ending in analysis-packet.md>`
+
 ## Instructions
 
 Review the following items extracted from the consolidated implementation plan
@@ -436,6 +611,13 @@ verdict:
   (e) item contradicts the trade-off matrix — **including a `P-Opt-*` option carrying an abstraction (helper module, strategy / factory, indirection layer, interface), a configuration knob every planned call site passes identically, or an optional parameter no planned call site supplies, when no `P-Req-*` requirement-coverage item in this same queue maps to it**: the matrix priced a complexity the option does not buy. Decide this from the queue alone — the requirement-coverage rows are in it, so this is plan-internal consistency, not a re-analysis of the brief. A behavior that already has two implementations is the opposite defect and belongs to `P-Var-*`; do not raise both on one behavior,
   (f) requirement coverage row does not map the stated requirement to a concrete satisfying option / stage / step — citing an existing option counts as concrete even if that option's paths are abbreviated (that is (b) on the option's item, not (f)).
   When you give a DISAGREE, also answer **Fixability** — `planner-fixable` if this defect can be fixed using only the code + this plan draft + the brief, `needs-user-input` if an open user clarification / external information is required.
+
+  On a `DISAGREE(a)`, or a `DISAGREE(f)` on a `P-Req-*` item, also answer **Claim** — those are the kinds that can block on your vote alone, so state what sort of claim it is and give okstra something to check.
+
+  - **`fact`** — write a **Probe** okstra can run, as one line of JSON: `{"kind": "path-absent", "path": "src/missing.ts"}`. The kinds are `path-exists`, `path-absent`, `literal-present`, `literal-absent` (a literal inside a file), and `citations-differ` (two spelled-out references that contradict each other, as `left` / `right`). Paths are project-relative.
+  - **`judgement`** — no probe. It takes a quorum, like `b` / `c` / `e`.
+
+  **Do not write a reproduction result.** okstra runs the probe and records the outcome; a result you write is discarded. If your claim cannot be written as one of those probes, it is a `judgement` — that is a classification, not a demotion, and a claim no machine can confirm should never have blocked on one vote.
 - **SUPPLEMENT**: The item is sound but a dependency / edge case / precondition
   is missing.
 - **UNVERIFIABLE**: Capability, credential, network, or service state prevents
@@ -509,9 +691,16 @@ rerun a free-form requirements analysis. Every DISAGREE includes Fixability.
 
 ## Response format
 
+Head each block with `### <plan item id>` at exactly three hashes. The heading
+depth is not style: the collector parses `^### ` and nothing else, so a block
+written at any other depth is not an unparsed block — it is a verdict that was
+never recorded, and the round is scored on the items that remain.
+
 ### P-Step-3
 **Verdict**: AGREE | DISAGREE(<a|b|c|d|e|f>) | SUPPLEMENT | UNVERIFIABLE
 **Fixability** (only when DISAGREE): planner-fixable | needs-user-input — "planner-fixable if it can be fixed using only the code + this plan + the brief". Fixability is not applicable for `UNVERIFIABLE`.
+**Claim** (only on `DISAGREE(a)`, or `DISAGREE(f)` on a P-Req item): fact | judgement
+**Probe** (only when Claim is fact): <one line of JSON, e.g. {"kind": "path-absent", "path": "src/missing.ts"}>
 **Note**: <the falsification candidate considered and why it is excluded; required even for AGREE>
 **Explanation**: <2-3 sentences>
 
@@ -525,6 +714,11 @@ rerun a free-form requirements analysis. Every DISAGREE includes Fixability.
 **Explanation**: <2-3 sentences applying the disposition-specific rule>
 ````
 
+**This template is the round-1 prompt.** Before rendering a round 2 or later,
+read §"Re-verification rounds (round 2+)" below first — such a round carries
+blocks this template does not have, and re-rendering this one alone is a
+contract violation.
+
 When `config.adversarial == true`, the lead prepends the adversarial framing from §"Adversarial plan-body posture" to the `## Instructions` block: the burden of proof is on the plan, the verifier opens and confirms every accessible cited path / command, and evidence that was opened but is insufficient yields the applicable `DISAGREE(<kind>)` rather than `AGREE`. Inability to inspect because of capability, credential, network, or service state yields `UNVERIFIABLE`, not DISAGREE. The verdict tokens, breakage kinds (a–f), classification, and the majority gate threshold are unchanged. This prepended framing supersedes the template's "Judge solely from plan internal consistency" instruction for the adversarial round.
 
 The "Reverify prompt: required-reading suppression" rule in [convergence](./convergence.md) (lightweight mode does NOT inject a `[Required reading]` clause) applies here as well.