`data/codex-yoloforever/cycle-20260908T1600Z.ixRcVU/dtd-final-codex-debate.txt`

8 lines

**PROSECUTOR:** OVERTURN. The panel risks laundering unfinished verification into a SHIP label. Closing empirical checks, ledger append/readback, and the evidence commit remain outstanding. Qwen claims independent checks passed without supplying their results and incorrectly treats SHIP as the only permissible action. Two available opinions do not establish six-model agreement. If SHIP certifies a completed monitoring cycle, the evidence does not support it.

**DEFENDER:** That objection attacks a completion claim the preliminary decision explicitly excludes. SHIP authorizes a bounded monitoring-only cycle to persist truthful evidence; it does not certify that cycle as finished. Outstanding checks remain mandatory, all operational outcomes remain UNRESOLVED, and external actions remain gated. Missing verification limits what can subsequently be claimed; it does not establish that performing the required verification and persistence is wrong.

**JUDGE:** The prosecutor defeats Qwen’s unsupported certainty, but not the narrower decision stated by Codex. The distinction between authorizing the bounded work and certifying its completion controls. No supplied evidence establishes that the authorized work itself violates the constraints.

FINAL: KEEP
SHIP permits proceeding with the monitoring-only cycle, including its outstanding checks, ledger readback, and local evidence commit. It cannot substantiate completion, recovery, or operational progress before those requirements are satisfied. The strongest objection exposes a potential overstatement of results, not a reason to reject the explicitly bounded action.