2026-09-02 — The 2026-09-01 supply-regime ruling reverses the 2026-08-31 degrade-to-flag decision (recorded at the maintainer's ruling, flagged as a reversal for the record). On 2026-08-31 the four prose signatures were degraded from refusing to flagging, so an honest report that tripped one landed with a review flag; the 2026-09-01 ruling names accept-and-flag as rejected and keeps only the structural rule, a reserved name as a key of the reader's own output. The implementation withdraws the signature registry and the review-flag plumbing it alone fed, since a detector that produces nothing is dead scaffolding, and re-stamps iss-2608311518056854, which the 31 August change had already resolved, under the new ruling with no `Resolves:` trailer, because RS001 refuses a trailer for an id that entered resolved/ before the branch diverged.

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/decisions/dcn-2609020000000001-the-2026-09-01-supply-regime-ruling.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions1

• iss-2608311518056854The supply-regime registry refuses a reading for quoting the document it read, and the rate is high: fourteen of thirty-four realistic reading outputs were refused, all by one failure mode. The disposition detector matches the bare token followed by a colon or equals, and this repository's records carry that token everywhere, so any explicative claim that quotes a record refuses. So do a claim reporting that a clause settles a licensing question, a claim quoting a paper that closes by recommending further study, a claim reporting that a suite scores below a threshold, and a detection reading that one section says a fix is merged while another says it is pending, which is the canonical shape of a detection finding. This is not the NFKC normalisation, which was measured innocent: an A/B over thirty-four cases flipped five outcomes and every one was the registry's own phrase in compatibility code points, with no innocent case newly refused. The noise predates it and is structural, because the detectors cannot distinguish a reading that PROPOSES from a reading that REPORTS someone else proposing, and the second is most of what a reading legitimately does. The intent records signature noise as its open question, but the disclosed residue names only under-catching; on this evidence over-catching is the larger risk and the residue should say so.