Contention caused by actors that never claimed anything (a migration, a provisioning step, a human at a terminal) #66

New issue

Open

opened 2026-08-25 10:43:33 +00:00 by jbr870 · 0 comments

jbr870 commented

2026-08-25 10:43:33 +00:00

Owner

Spawned from finding F-PO-43-2-4 (out-of-scope) on issue #43 during decision D-PO-43-2-4.

Original scope note: Flagged out of scope in the PREQ: the triage rule keys on claims, and keying it on observed use would require the enforcement layer the operator declined. Not filed anywhere, and it is the residual hole in the declared-and-honoured model. Recommend a follow-up issue so the boundary is tracked rather than rediscovered.

Disposition rationale: Covering actors that never claim (migrations, provisioning steps, humans at terminals) would need the enforcement layer the operator declined, so the boundary is permanent in the declared-and-honoured model; a tracked issue keeps that known blind spot visible instead of silent.

This issue was deferred out of the parent feature's scope; it carries no PREQ yet. Run /dev:requirements --issue=<this> to flesh it out before planning.

Spawned from finding `F-PO-43-2-4` (out-of-scope) on issue #43 during decision D-PO-43-2-4. **Original scope note:** Flagged out of scope in the PREQ: the triage rule keys on claims, and keying it on observed use would require the enforcement layer the operator declined. Not filed anywhere, and it is the residual hole in the declared-and-honoured model. Recommend a follow-up issue so the boundary is tracked rather than rediscovered. **Disposition rationale:** Covering actors that never claim (migrations, provisioning steps, humans at terminals) would need the enforcement layer the operator declined, so the boundary is permanent in the declared-and-honoured model; a tracked issue keeps that known blind spot visible instead of silent. This issue was deferred out of the parent feature's scope; it carries no PREQ yet. Run `/dev:requirements --issue=<this>` to flesh it out before planning.

jbr870 added the

labels

2026-08-25 10:43:33 +00:00

jbr870 referenced this issue

2026-08-25 10:43:34 +00:00

QA: intra-run lane-ownership primitive, plus a void-vs-flaky triage rule #43