task_20260804: record ADC Seed Playbook v0.1 implementation run

[leezx]

Audit record for an external six-module run implementing Target-centered ADC Seed Playbook v0.1, now quarantined. 2 files, +361/-0. Zero .py, zero contract, zero manifest, zero test, zero Gate, zero data.

This PR is covered by no waiver. AGENTS.md's ## 审核豁免 applies to prompts/GPT-Feedback.md only.

Source: Zhixins-KB/5.Archive/ChatGPT/2026-GPT-Biotech.md, heading Target-centered ADC Seed Playbook v0.1, lines 1–382. The # is an Obsidian heading link, not a path.

Status after the Round 1 ruling

The external run is UNAUTHORIZED_QUARANTINED_NOT_ACCEPTED. Audit evidence only; must not be used as input to any subsequent work.

This PR no longer asks whether the run can be ratified. It cannot, and the ruling is accepted.

• PR task_20260804: record #50 and #51 approvals #52 is merged (985edf8); the 2026-08-04 audit loop for PR C — task_20260804: close PR #45 audit gap (Round 3 approval on record) #46–task_20260804: write the GPT-Feedback.md review waiver into AGENTS.md, narrowed #51 is closed.
• PR task_20260804: record CRC clinical frame and membrane target screen run #53 is quarantined, not approved. Its run is unaccepted, which propagates here — see upstream contamination below.

M1's "no architecture change required" is an UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS, not a confirmed result. headline_result.status is UNVERIFIED_HYPOTHESIS_NOT_CONFIRMED. The dependent claim that the monthly architecture-repair window was not consumed is withdrawn as equally undetermined.

What this PR now contains

A handoff carrying the quarantine ruling and a worklog entry recording it. Nothing else.

Round 1 finding	Resolution
1. No authorizing PR; ran while #52 and #53 were both unapproved	Dependency-order violation recorded. Status → UNAUTHORIZED_QUARANTINED_NOT_ACCEPTED. Not ratified.
2. Substantive policy/analysis run, not an audit record	Accepted. Every rule, condition, disposition, verdict, finding and recommendation is unaccepted — see below.
3. Depends on the unapproved #53 run	Contamination named concretely — see below.
4. No per-file SHA-256	9 checksums in handoff appendix A, computed after the quarantine markings.
5. "No architecture change" cannot be a confirmed conclusion	Downgraded to an unverified hypothesis; the monthly-window claim withdrawn.

Explicitly not accepted

• The M2 Seed Admission Standard: its decision rules, class criteria and fatal vetoes.
• The M4 antibody-development entry conditions.
• The M3 17-target dispositions.
• The M5 stress-test verdicts and the EXPLORATION / HOLD decisions.
• The M6 findings and every experimental recommendation, including the shared immunohistochemistry panel.
• The M1 architecture verdict — reduced to a hypothesis.

This PR authorises no policy, no admission standard, no screening result, no experimental recommendation, and no follow-on run. Merging it records a ruling; it approves no content.

Upstream contamination, named concretely

This run consumed the anchor clinical context (MSS/pMMR mCRC 3L+ with a durable-regression benefit) from the quarantined #53 run. M5 marked condition AE-01 MET for all three targets on that basis. AE-01 therefore cannot be treated as met even if this run is separately authorised — the upstream run must be re-executed and accepted first. Cross-recorded in both external manifests and both handoffs.

Approving this PR cannot launder that upstream source, and this PR does not claim otherwise.

On finding 5 — downgraded, not deleted

The mapping is retained because it was made against the actual contract files and gate directory and remains independently re-checkable; deleting it would destroy re-checkable evidence. But it is now explicitly barred from being cited as settling the architecture question, or as justification for skipping it.

That is the point taken: derivation quality does not substitute for authorisation. The handoff's §3 heading and the withdrawn monthly-window sentence both carry inline downgrade markers, so a reader landing there directly sees the change; the original text is preserved for comparison.

Deliberately not done

• The run is not ratified.
• Neither contract-only PR is created here — not task_20260804: record CRC clinical frame and membrane target screen run #53's upstream one, nor the Playbook one. Both must pre-freeze scope and rule semantics and require their own authorisation.
• No scientific content deleted; quarantine marks as unaccepted rather than destroying evidence.
• No code, contract, Gate topology, Model, Profile, lifecycle, core object or test change.

Branch incident, recorded not concealed

Three distinct facts, stated separately because a blanket claim conflated them in the previous description:

1. An incorrect commit did reach a remote. Commit 108931b (a 684-line GenModule) was pushed to the remote branch task_20260804_crc-clinical-frame-and-target-screen, i.e. PR task_20260804: record CRC clinical frame and membrane target screen run #53's own branch. For a period this PR's remote head was 108931b, so task_20260804: record CRC clinical frame and membrane target screen run #53 and target safety and therapeutic-window pre-screen GenModule #55 were byte-identical and this PR — under REQUEST_CHANGES — carried unrelated code. That is a real audit fact, not a near-miss.
2. Only the executor's misplaced quarantine commit was never pushed. ff943e7 was committed onto the wrong branch because the shared working tree moved HEAD between checkout and commit. It reached no remote, verified with git branch -r --contains ff943e7 (empty) before any branch operation. That verification covered ff943e7 alone and was wrongly generalised in the earlier description.
3. The split was completed afterwards, not before. With the human lead's authorisation, both branches were rewritten via --force-with-lease: this branch reset to the reviewed audit commit plus the quarantine fix, and target safety and therapeutic-window pre-screen GenModule #55's branch rebased onto main with the audit commit dropped. Recovery points for every pre-surgery ref were recorded first.

The previous description said "Nothing incorrect reached any remote." That was wrong — it applied a check scoped to ff943e7 to the whole incident, which reads as if 108931b had never been pushed to this PR's branch. It had been. Corrected here rather than softened.

Branch name is now asserted before every git add and commit.

Flagged for the human lead, not decided here: PR #55 adds a GenModule with its own contracts.py. Under the freeze declared 2026-08-04 that is an architecture question that should be raised explicitly rather than ride in as a module addition.

Verification

PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 python3 -B -m unittest discover -s tests -p test_*.py
  Ran 228 tests — OK   (identical to main; no code or test change)

bash scripts/verify_repository_boundary.sh    Repository boundary check passed.
git diff --check                              passed
__pycache__ directories                       0
staged files outside logs/ and docs/handoff/  none
working tree touched by the external run      no

External artefacts: 9 files, SHA-256 in handoff appendix A; verify with shasum -a 256 *.

Open items

• Resolution path: close task_20260804: record #50 and #51 approvals #52 (done) → resolve task_20260804: record CRC clinical frame and membrane target screen run #53's upstream run via its own contract-only PR and re-execution → separate contract-only PR for the six Playbook modules pre-freezing scope, rule semantics, evidence standard and output validation → APPROVE → re-execute.
• Whether the monthly architecture-repair window is consumed is undetermined, and there is no mechanical record of it either way.
• Class C admission route undecided; the S-02 ordering question (does a Seed require a real binder?) unconfirmed.
• AGENTS.md has no test guard; CI does not cover macOS; merged branches await cleanup (destructive, needs authorisation).

Governance

Awaiting re-review. Not to be merged without an explicit APPROVE.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[leezx]

Round 2 — REQUEST_CHANGES addressed

All five findings accepted. The run is not ratified after the fact.

Finding	Action
1. No authorizing PR; ran while #52 and #53 both unapproved	Run status → UNAUTHORIZED_QUARANTINED_NOT_ACCEPTED. Dependency-order violation recorded.
2. Substantive policy/analysis run, not an audit record	M2 rules, M4 conditions, M3 dispositions, M5 verdicts, M6 findings and all experimental recommendations explicitly not accepted.
3. Depends on the unapproved #53 run	Contamination named concretely: this run consumed #53's anchor clinical context, and M5 marked AE-01 MET for all three targets on that basis. AE-01 therefore cannot be treated as met even if this run is later authorised. Cross-recorded in both manifests and both handoffs.
4. No per-file SHA-256	9 checksums added (appendix A), computed after the quarantine markings.
5. "No architecture change" cannot be a confirmed conclusion	Downgraded to an unverified hypothesis. headline_result.status → UNVERIFIED_HYPOTHESIS_NOT_CONFIRMED. The dependent claim that the monthly architecture-repair window was not consumed is withdrawn as equally undetermined.

On finding 5 — the mapping is retained, not deleted, because it was made against the actual contract files and gate directory and is independently re-checkable; deleting it would destroy re-checkable evidence. But it is now explicitly barred from being cited as settling the architecture question or justifying skipping it. That is the point taken: derivation quality does not substitute for authorisation.

Deliberately not done: neither contract-only PR (the #53 upstream one, nor the Playbook one) is created here — both need to pre-freeze scope and semantics and require their own authorisation.

Also flagged for the human lead, not decided by me: PR #55 adds a GenModule with its own contracts.py. Under the freeze declared today that is an architecture question that should be raised explicitly rather than ride in as a module addition.

207 tests OK · boundary check passed · CI 3.11/3.12 green · MERGEABLE/CLEAN