Review brief: region HA plan 1b-next, round 1

You are an independent second reader. Review the implementation plan docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-07-region-ha-1b-next-relocation.md at the commit named in the prompt, against the tree at the working directory (Go, module github.com/carlosframework/platform, main at 3407d114, which holds claim Plans 1-8b and 5) and these authorities:

• region HA spec docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-04-region-ha-box-placement-design.md (rev 5.4 plus §24; rulings H1-H19 in §0; L1-L20 in §9, all accepted);
• claim spec rev 6.30: git show origin/design-replica-ownership:docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-02-host-lifecycle-claim-design.md;
• claim Plan 6b (not merged): git show origin/design-replica-ownership:docs/superpowers/plans/2026-10-06-host-lifecycle-claim-6b-box-assembly.md;
• moves spec on origin/design-moves-any-region (rev 7.22);
• contracts note docs/superpowers/notes/2026-10-07-region-ha-contracts.md.

Fixed: do not re-argue

• Rulings H1-H19, Paul's approval of spec rev 5.4, and claim rev 6.30's adoption of L1-L20.
• One implementation per concept, and main's wins: the termination fence is written only by internal/hostfence.TerminationWorker; the roster is read only through internal/hostactors.Directory. 1b-next must not add a second writer or reader.
• The two-box joint model (L18) is a separate piece of work. This plan only gates the merge of relocation on it. Do not ask this plan to write it.
• Tasks 8-10 are marked as gated on unmerged code (6b, moves Plan 2, claim Plan 5's app gate). They were not compiled. Review them against the interfaces those plans declare, not against main.
• Everything stays dormant behind CARLOSREGIONHA.

What to check

1. Tasks 1-7 compile and their tests pass as written. They were dry-run on a clean 3407d114. A "would not compile" finding quotes the line and names exactly what is undefined.
2. Each test pins what its name claims and fails with its mechanism removed.
3. Correctness against the claim spec: the relocating transitions; the fence-consuming CASes; released coverage (L9); the L11 start guard; stop evidence (L10); drain versus failover release; R6 (no warm reuse of a local DB); prepared generations and AdmitWriter; executor choice (H4, with the SHA-256 tie-break recorded in the create intent); the §5.3 row cases; the pin object; stuck handling.
4. Races: a crash or a lost response at every step of the worker and participants; two workers; a box terminated mid-relocation (nested failover); a stale edges file; a late PUT after termination.
5. Dormancy: anything that changes behaviour with CARLOSREGIONHA off, or on a one-box region.
6. Task boundaries and the gated tasks' interface assumptions against 6b's and Plan 5's declared interfaces.
7. The author's rulings (in the plan): accept each one, or say why it is wrong.

Output

Findings ranked P1 (would not compile, a test fails, or unsafe), P2 (wrong or missing), P3 (clarity). Each gives the task and step, the problem, the evidence (file:line, or the plan's own line), and a concrete fix. End with a verdict: ready to build, or not ready.