`data/codex-yoloforever/cycle-20260908T1534Z.q8Ieot/dtd-final-codex-debate.txt`

9 lines

**PROSECUTOR:** Overturn. This is not six-model corroboration: only two models responded, and Qwen relies on five critics whose evidence is absent. A canary remains failed, critical paths were skipped, and closing proof, ledger readback, and the evidence commit are unfinished. “No reproduced defect” cannot establish successful persistence or justify completion.

**DEFENDER:** Those objections defeat a completion claim, but the proposed SHIP decision explicitly authorizes a narrower action: persist truthful monitoring evidence and return to the already approved runner. It preserves the failure, skips, missing approvals, and unresolved sources. Neither recovery nor operational closure is authorized. Pending persistence checks are work to execute, not evidence being claimed as already obtained.

**JUDGE:** The controlling distinction is authorization versus certification. Qwen’s unsupported consensus and “only viable option” claims carry no weight. Codex nevertheless supplies a defensible, bounded decision whose scope does not require the unresolved failures to be cleared.

FINAL: KEEP

SHIP permits recording the disclosed monitoring state and returning to the approved runner; it does not certify completion or system health. The prosecutor establishes that persistence and exit remain unverified, but identifies no reason those limitations prohibit the bounded action itself. Any later completion claim must rest on actual closing proof, ledger readback, commit evidence, and observed exit.