amadan
spec: region HA spec 1 rev 5.3, Astra review brief (round 4)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1 file changed,
+70
−0
docs/superpowers/specs/CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-REGION-HA-REV5-4.md+70 −0
CI passed — run details
diff --git a/docs/superpowers/specs/CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-REGION-HA-REV5-4.md b/docs/superpowers/specs/CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-REGION-HA-REV5-4.md| new file mode 100644 |
| index 000000000..415215ead |
| --- /dev/null |
| +++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-REGION-HA-REV5-4.md |
| @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ |
| +# Review brief: region HA spec 1 rev 5.3, round 4 |
| + |
| +You are an independent second reader. Review |
| +`docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-04-region-ha-box-placement-design.md` at |
| +the commit named in the prompt, in the repository at the working |
| +directory (Go; carlos platform). |
| + |
| +## What changed and why |
| + |
| +Your rev 5 round 3 findings (`CODEX-FINDINGS-REGION-HA-REV5-3.md`, B3-1 |
| +to B3-5) were all about the volume guard. Rather than patch it again, |
| +Paul ruled **H19** (2026-10-06), which supersedes H15 and the volume half |
| +of H10: |
| + |
| +- the failover fence for **execution** rests on a verified `terminated` |
| + read alone, bound to the roster's `cloud` identity (event, describe, |
| + later the group's history; absence never evidence): claim §7.2's own |
| + lost-box rule; |
| +- disk evidence (the box's volume records, launch-time to last running, |
| + all `DeleteOnTermination`, none removed) decides **only** whether the |
| + dead box's `park-local` chores are discharged automatically (claim |
| + D5). Otherwise they stay open for an operator, and recovery waits on |
| + nothing; |
| +- a surviving disk copy (Recycle Bin, copy, snapshot, image, detach) is |
| + a data-retention concern for the operator path, not a two-writer risk. |
| + |
| +So rev 5.3 removes the SCP, holds, change role, guard attestation and |
| +service-role audit, and rewrites §5.9 (what counts, disk evidence for |
| +discharge, the volume record), §6 (disks), §7, §8, §9 (L2, L3), §10 and |
| +§19. §22 is the disposition table, with a note revisiting B1-3, B1-4, |
| +B2-1, B2-2 and B2-3. |
| + |
| +## Fixed: do not re-argue |
| + |
| +Rulings H1 to H19 in §0 (H19 supersedes H15 and the volume half of |
| +H10), and the claim's own ruled text (R6 in particular: no warm reuse of |
| +a local database). Report only mechanisms that fail to honour them, are |
| +unsafe, or are missing. |
| + |
| +## Sources to check against |
| + |
| +- Claim spec: `git show origin/design-replica-ownership:docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-02-host-lifecycle-claim-design.md` |
| + (§2, §4, §5.1, §5.9 PROPOSED, §6.4, §6.4a, §6.6 PROPOSED, §7, §8, §10.1 PROPOSED). |
| +- Claim code on main: internal/hostclaim, internal/hostguard, |
| + internal/stopevidence, internal/park, internal/genselect. |
| +- Moves spec: /home/paulca/amadan.net/carlos/platform-moves-design/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-02-move-any-app-design.md |
| + (latest committed rev on that worktree's branch). |
| +- Plan 1a's code on main, for §18 and §19's claims about it. |
| +## Focus |
| + |
| +1. **First, a disposition table** for B3-1 to B3-5: resolved, moot under |
| + H19 (say whether you agree it is moot), or not resolved, each with |
| + the section that answers it. |
| +2. **Then, specifically: does any two-writer or data-loss path now |
| + depend on disk evidence?** Follow every place the fence, the census |
| + (L5, L20), relocation (§5.8), §5.10, H17's confirmer and the claim's |
| + admission rules (C4, §6.4, §6.4a, P6-D2) are used, and say whether any |
| + of them still reads volume records, tags or IAM state, or would admit |
| + a writer from a surviving disk. |
| +3. **Then only new findings.** Do not re-raise anything resolved in any |
| + earlier round (rounds 1 to 6 of rev 4.x, rev 5 rounds 1 to 3) unless |
| + this revision broke it; if it did, say which change broke it. Data |
| + retention of surviving disk copies is out of scope by H19. |
| + |
| +## Output |
| + |
| +The disposition table, the answer to focus 2, then new findings ranked |
| +P1 (unsafe or blocks a plan), P2 (wrong or missing), P3 (clarity). Each: |
| +section, the problem, a concrete failing sequence, and a suggested fix. |
| +End with a verdict: ready for plan, or not ready. |