Problem. /red-team defines three verdicts (CLEARED / BLOCKED / INCOMPLETE) and Step 5
mandates a re-run of each affected probe after patching. In practice the operator's standing
rule is different: patch the roots, adjudicate, proceed — re-verification reserved for
findings where being wrong is expensive. The skill has no vocabulary for that outcome, so
the Lead invents one ("CLEARED by adjudication", 2026-07-28), which is both non-greppable
and indistinguishable in the artifact from a probe-proven clear.
This is a doctrine gap, not a bug: a BLOCKED gate that the Lead legitimately proceeds past
should say so in a name the tooling and every downstream seat can read.
Proposed shape.
- New terminal verdict
ADJUDICATED in red-team-gate.mjs — deliberately NOT a synonym for
CLEARED. Emitted when every blocker/needsDecision carries a patch + an adjudication row.
CLEARED stays reserved for probe-proven. A seat reading ADJUDICATED knows the clear rests
on operator authority, not evidence.
- Step 5 rewrite: default is patch-and-adjudicate, no re-run. The re-verify trigger becomes
the two-part test (executed probe AND the patch changes what it measures). Keep the <=2
round bound for the cases that do re-verify.
- Invariants: today "a blocker that survives its rounds makes the terminal verdict BLOCKED"
— needs the ADJUDICATED arm added so a fully-patched run is not forced to report BLOCKED.
- Report template (references/lenses.md): a verdict line that distinguishes the two, and a
required provenance marker on the Adjudications block — operator-ratified vs AI-declared
(ADR 0014). AFK self-adjudication under a standing operator directive is ratified; a bare
AI call with no directive is not.
- ADR: this changes pipeline doctrine (a gate becomes advisory under a named condition).
Record the decision, the two-part re-verify test, and the CLEARED-vs-ADJUDICATED split.
Interaction to think through. ADR 0017 says a validation in neither the gate, a floor,
nor the backstops section may not be waived in prose. This directive waives re-verification
of a patch, not the validation itself — adjacent but distinct. The ADR should state the
boundary explicitly so ADJUDICATED never becomes a route around 0017.
Precedent. Both plans of campaign 2026-07-28-audit-doctrine-and-prompt-simplification
cleared by adjudication (plan 1: 11 rows A-K; plan 2: 14 rows A-N). The recorded 2026-07-26
execution outcome "the same-wave adjudication was insufficient" is the counterweight and
should be cited in the ADR's Consequences as the known residual risk.
Problem. /red-team defines three verdicts (CLEARED / BLOCKED / INCOMPLETE) and Step 5
mandates a re-run of each affected probe after patching. In practice the operator's standing
rule is different: patch the roots, adjudicate, proceed — re-verification reserved for
findings where being wrong is expensive. The skill has no vocabulary for that outcome, so
the Lead invents one ("CLEARED by adjudication", 2026-07-28), which is both non-greppable
and indistinguishable in the artifact from a probe-proven clear.
This is a doctrine gap, not a bug: a BLOCKED gate that the Lead legitimately proceeds past
should say so in a name the tooling and every downstream seat can read.
Proposed shape.
ADJUDICATEDin red-team-gate.mjs — deliberately NOT a synonym forCLEARED. Emitted when every blocker/needsDecision carries a patch + an adjudication row.
CLEARED stays reserved for probe-proven. A seat reading ADJUDICATED knows the clear rests
on operator authority, not evidence.
the two-part test (executed probe AND the patch changes what it measures). Keep the <=2
round bound for the cases that do re-verify.
— needs the ADJUDICATED arm added so a fully-patched run is not forced to report BLOCKED.
required provenance marker on the Adjudications block — operator-ratified vs AI-declared
(ADR 0014). AFK self-adjudication under a standing operator directive is ratified; a bare
AI call with no directive is not.
Record the decision, the two-part re-verify test, and the CLEARED-vs-ADJUDICATED split.
Interaction to think through. ADR 0017 says a validation in neither the gate, a floor,
nor the backstops section may not be waived in prose. This directive waives re-verification
of a patch, not the validation itself — adjacent but distinct. The ADR should state the
boundary explicitly so ADJUDICATED never becomes a route around 0017.
Precedent. Both plans of campaign 2026-07-28-audit-doctrine-and-prompt-simplification
cleared by adjudication (plan 1: 11 rows A-K; plan 2: 14 rows A-N). The recorded 2026-07-26
execution outcome "the same-wave adjudication was insufficient" is the counterweight and
should be cited in the ADR's Consequences as the known residual risk.