`data/codex-yoloforever/cycle-20260908T1221Z.HzXvuQ/dtd-ops/codex-debate.txt`

9 lines

**PROSECUTOR:** A assumes the rehearsal is feasible before establishing available disk space or a consistent source capture. Copying a 3033 MB `.git` directory and preserving an untouched recovery copy could exhaust storage. A changing source could invalidate both the size result and recovery evidence. Moreover, reducing a disposable copy below 2850 MB does not establish that production maintenance is authorized or safe.

**DEFENDER:** Those objections limit execution and what the evidence proves; they do not defeat preparation. A explicitly requires bounded isolation, original-copy preservation, and precise reporting of insufficient space or source drift. If those prerequisites fail, the rehearsal stops without cleanup or expanded scope. A successful rehearsal establishes only measured effects and recoverability on the captured copy. Production authorization and TK-10928 remain unresolved.

**JUDGE:** The prosecutor identifies real feasibility risks but does not establish that A requires proceeding despite them. Its explicit failure reporting and preservation boundaries make those risks reasons to stop an attempted rehearsal, rather than reasons to reject the preparation decision.

FINAL: KEEP

The controlling argument is that A authorizes bounded evidence gathering, not production maintenance or guaranteed completion. Available space and capture consistency must be established before consequential rehearsal steps; failure leaves the work blocked and the ticket open. Within those limits, the rehearsal addresses the missing recovery evidence without extending the September 4 approval to this repository.