`data/codex-yoloforever/cycle-20260908T1446Z.BgRMQG/dtd-final-codex-debate.txt`

9 lines

**PROSECUTOR:** Overturn. SHIP risks laundering failure into success: root remains at 3054 MB FAIL, implementation is zero, execution is 0/6, and neither ticket closed. Appending records and committing evidence also require writes under the failed storage condition; their safety is asserted, not demonstrated. Only two models voted, and Qwen’s “absence of new defects” is unsupported. An unverified clean exit cannot justify a successful operational outcome.

**DEFENDER:** Those objections defeat a recovery or completion claim, but the proposed decision authorizes only a monitoring cycle: record failures truthfully, safely append the ledger, commit local evidence, and exit to the existing cadence. It explicitly preserves unresolved tickets, approvals, ZERO_COST_REQUIRED, and env1. Recovery, sellability, and post-return worker exit remain SKIP. The root failure demands caution with writes; the supplied evidence does not establish that every bounded local write is unsafe. Two valid votes establish the preliminary result; four abstentions add no support.

**JUDGE:** The decisive distinction is between accepting a limited monitoring cycle and certifying operational recovery. The preliminary decision explicitly chooses the former. The prosecutor correctly rejects unsupported success claims but has not established that the authorized cycle itself violates a constraint. Neither safe persistence nor clean exit may be reported as accomplished without evidence.

FINAL: KEEP

SHIP is justified only for the expressly bounded monitoring cycle, whose output preserves FAIL, unresolved tickets, and SKIP results. Zero implementation and closures do not contradict that scope. The decision authorizes constrained local work; it does not certify successful writes, recovery, or worker exit, and the unavailable models supply no additional confidence.