`data/codex-yoloforever/cycle-20260908T1651Z.AQuuOW/dtd-final-codex-debate.txt`

11 lines
Verified the guard reads `ZERO_COST_REQUIRED`. Applying the DTD skill’s adversarial review to the supplied preliminary decision.

**PROSECUTOR:** SHIP risks certifying an unfinished monitoring cycle. The reported 28 PASS cannot neutralize four skips or establish ledger durability, successful persistence, or scheduler reentry. Those closing checks are prospective, and all three source outcomes remain unresolved. Only two models voted; unavailable models provide no support. Qwen’s assertion that SHIP is the “only permissible action” falsely equates authorization to continue monitoring with evidence that this cycle succeeded.

**DEFENDER:** That objection defeats an unconditional completion claim, but the preliminary decision explicitly makes acceptance conditional on closing checks and ledger append/fsync/readback. Its scope is monitoring persistence and normal return—not source recovery. Unresolved sources and critical skips remain recorded, and repair approvals remain necessary. Worker exit cannot be verified before returning; demanding that evidence first would make the authorized return impossible. The decision rests on those constraints, not vote count or Qwen’s exclusivity claim.

**JUDGE:** The prosecutor establishes a real risk of overstating completion, but does not establish that the narrowly authorized action is wrong. The supplied decision preserves the prerequisite checks; it does not declare them completed. KEEP therefore authorizes the conditional monitoring closeout without certifying persistence, source recovery, or subsequent loop execution.

FINAL: KEEP

The controlling distinction is between authorizing a constrained closeout and certifying its success. Closing checks and persistence verification remain prerequisites; their failure would defeat acceptance of this cycle. All three source outcomes remain unresolved, and normal return cannot itself prove that the next scheduled run occurs.