"approval_note":"2026-09-09 brief drafted. Scope lifted out of contributor-scan, where two task groups (a counter-example ledger and per-repository evolutionary prompting) had been appended directly to tasks.md without passing requirements or design -- a workflow error, and they are a separate feature rather than a refinement of scan integration. Prompted by the maintainer asking for GEPA/SIMBA-style evolution with declarative persistent per-repository state so developers can commit dismissals and evolve the harness. The design boundary is that an optimiser may evolve the QUESTION (judge and residual prompts) and never the FACTS (tables, rulesets, declared policy), because the closed-loop leak measured 2026-09-05 turned a -0.059 holdout Youden into +0.059 by teaching from the pairs it then recovered. Not approved; requirements not generated. ; 2026-09-09 requirements generated at the maintainer's direction ('approve the amendments and generate the requirements for finding-feedback-loop'). Seven requirements: a dismissal file the developer owns and the tool never writes; a counter-example ledger whose entries are runnable regression cases grouped by shared cause; a model that proposes a cause into a review queue and decides nothing, validated by reverting the three known matcher fixes; dismissals plus recipe vulnerabilities as one split evaluation set with the holdout unread; evolution scoped to the judge and residual questions with the fact tables off limits by any automated means; an adoption that reports what it traded and reverts itself when net-negative; and the loop inheriting the corpus blind spot, so its evidence base is repositories and it says how few of them there are. Not approved. ; 2026-09-09 requirements APPROVED and design generated ('approve the requirements and run the design phase'). The design turns on one asymmetry: two of the three matcher bugs needed no judgement at all, only the fix carried across, so the automation that pays is propagation and memory and the model is confined to naming what a group shares. Two prohibitions are enforced by tests rather than convention -- no module under feedback/ may import a writer for the fact tables or rulesets, and evaluation_set has no code path returning holdout rows during optimisation (the missing 'all' argument IS the design, since the 2026-09-05 leak was possible because reading the holdout was merely discouraged). A dismissal is recorded AT a rung, so dismissing a suspicion does not silence the same site when the graph later entails it. Risk recorded: the evidence base is two repositories, one of which has never produced a true positive, so the ledger and dismissals are useful immediately while the evolution should not be trusted until contributor-scan 2.15 or 5.2 lands a checkout that can."
