`data/codex-yoloforever/cycle-20260908T1508Z.kSOq7u/dtd-final-codex-debate.txt`

9 lines

**PROSECUTOR:** Overturn. SHIP risks converting an unfinished monitoring cycle into a success claim. Root usage is 3,054 MB against a 3,000 MB ceiling; implementation is 0/6; critical skips and approvals remain unresolved. Even the bounded monitoring deliverable lacks its final recheck, append/fsync/readback, and evidence commit. Only two models supplied verdicts, and Qwen’s claim that no actionable defects exist is unsupported.

**DEFENDER:** Those facts defeat a claim of remediation or completion, but the preliminary decision expressly makes neither. SHIP authorizes persisting an accurate monitoring record and returning to the existing 600-second schedule. Recording failure does not require fixing that failure first. The outstanding persistence checks remain execution requirements; no threshold, approval gate, or source status changes.

**JUDGE:** The prosecutor establishes that completion is unproven and the panel’s apparent breadth is overstated. Neither establishes that the bounded next action is wrong. Codex’s explicit scope controls; Qwen’s broader rationale does not.

FINAL: KEEP

The controlling distinction is between authorizing the monitoring disposition and certifying successful execution. Persisting the unresolved failures and preserving the existing cadence is justified; claiming the record is durably saved or the worker exited normally requires the pending evidence. SHIP grants no remediation success, implementation credit, or permission to bypass existing gates.