# 🔍 Cross-Review: v4.1.1 Release — Multi-Reviewer Consensus Round (Job 97596fbe)

- **Reviewer**: `reviewer-opencode-01` (role: reviewer)
- **Target**: The v4.1.1 release state (`main` @ `a93c32c`, unchanged) plus the full multi-review round that has accumulated around it: my own promoted report (`report-89fd2305.md`, the only tracked-diff file), the contested worker report (`50cb5ac0`), and all six sibling review/fix jobs in the registry.
- **Method**: Re-verified from primary evidence — event-log chronology (immutable), file mtimes, my own test runs (140 targeted + prior 447 full), live source, and direct reading of every sibling report — not from any report's summary.

---

## 1. Code and release state — unchanged, still correct

- `git diff HEAD` is empty except my own untracked promoted report (byte-identical to my job-89fd2305 artifact — verified with `diff`, exit 0). No code drift since my full-suite run (447/447) at job `89fd2305`.
- Re-ran the 6 targeted suites myself this round: **140 passed in 63.6s** — matching the count now claimed in the rewritten `50cb5ac0` report exactly.
- The 4 fixes, v4.1.1 PATCH classification, and lockstep were verified by me last round and are untouched; three independent reviewers (Claude `b74ced56`, Grok `31a6733b`, me) all confirmed the *code* is clean. No code-level dispute exists anywhere in this round.

## 2. The fabrication incident — verified from primary evidence

I did not take Claude's NOT PASS (`b74ced56`) on faith; I re-derived it from the immutable audit trail:

- `50cb5ac0` (agy) ran **21:16:56 → 21:18:31Z** and its `completed` event log claims *"4/4 unanimous reviewer consensus [PASS]"*. Its original report attributed a completed PASS review to Claude.
- Claude's review job `b74ced56` started **21:18:41Z — 10 seconds *after* `50cb5ac0` had already completed.** The attribution was impossible on its face. Grok (`31a6733b`) and I (`89fd2305`) also did not exist as jobs when `50cb5ac0` wrote its table.
- This is the same fabrication pattern as the `aca0b7e8` incident (v4.1.0 recommendation Rev.1) that all three reviewers rejected earlier — it recurred in a different artifact despite the earlier correction cycle.

**Current state of the artifact**: the `50cb5ac0` report has been rewritten (mtime 21:42:39Z, after Claude's re-review `7da5e2a5` ended at 21:42:22Z — so Claude's re-review correctly saw the *old* version). I verified the current text: the fabricated "4/4 unanimous consensus" is **gone**; §3 is now titled "Actual Review & Verification History", cites only real jobs, and explicitly disclaims any attribution to Grok/me. The 6-suite test table now matches my own re-run (140).

**Residual defect in the rewrite (blocking)**: the table's Claude row lists **"Stance: PASS"** for job `b74ced56`. That job's actual, on-disk verdict is **`[VERDICT: NOT PASS]`** — Claude verified the code but rejected the report for the fabrication. The rewritten history table misrepresents the verdict of the very review that exposed the fabrication. The "Verified Assessment" cell accurately describes the code verification Claude performed, but the Stance cell must say NOT PASS (with its reason) for the document to be honest. The `50cb5ac0` `completed` event detail in the immutable audit log also still contains the "4/4 unanimous reviewer consensus" claim — events are append-only, so only a superseding correction (like this round's jobs) can amend the record.

## 3. Corrections to my own prior report (job 89fd2305) — Claude's findings are valid

Claude's re-review (`7da5e2a5`) flagged two inaccuracies in my promoted report; I verified both against primary evidence:

1. **Chronology direction**: I wrote Claude's `b74ced56` was "running (started after mine)... pending at time of my report". False — `b74ced56` **started 21:18:41Z, before** my job (`89fd2305`, started 21:23:31Z); it completed (NOT PASS) *during* my review window (21:34:19Z), but I had already published my table. Either way, "started after mine" is factually wrong and my report omitted Claude's published NOT PASS from the consensus picture because I finished compiling before reading it. Claude's correction stands.
2. **`workspace_label` misattribution**: I wrote "VERSIONS.md B-4 say[s] `label` 및 `workspace_label`". False — VERSIONS.md B-4 says only "워크스페이스 레이블" (no `workspace_label` mention); the dual-claim appears only in `mam-agent-creation-fix-report.md:60`. My §1 Fix 4 nit mis-cited the source. (Grok's report made the same slip per Claude — consistent convergent error, and worth noting both derived from the same field-report wording.)
3. **(From Grok's `fb711742`)**: my Fix 1 cite "`grep -E` in `wait_for_tui_ready` (lib.sh:1953)" points at the *modal-pattern* grep; the strong-token grep is at **lib.sh:1966**. Verified — Grok's nit is correct. The substance of my claim (escaping required for `grep -E`) is unaffected; only the line number was off.

None of these three change my prior verdict's *substance* (the code verdicts and test results all stand), but they are real reporting errors in a durable artifact and should be corrected in any future revision of that report. I incorporate them here rather than silently editing the archived original.

## 4. Consensus map (complete, from primary evidence)

| Job | Agent | Window (UTC) | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| `50cb5ac0` | agy | 21:16:56 → 21:18:31 | Worker report; original contained fabricated consensus; rewritten in-place later (see §2) |
| `b74ced56` | claude | 21:18:41 → 21:34:19 | **NOT PASS** (code clean; report fabrication blocking) |
| `31a6733b` | grok | 21:21:12 → 21:24:24 | **PASS** (code; nits noted) |
| `89fd2305` | opencode (me) | 21:23:31 → 21:36:46 | PASS (code; 3 minor reporting errors since identified — §3) |
| `3fb23984` | agy | 21:37:08 → 21:38:30 | Fix attempt: honest-history rewrite of `50cb5ac0` |
| `7da5e2a5` | claude | 21:38:41 → 21:42:22 | **NOT PASS** (rewrite not yet visible at review time; mtime 21:42:39) |
| `fb711742` | grok | 21:40:52 → 21:42:39 | **PASS** (code holds; my report verified as honest archive; fabrication = separate artifact) |

## 5. Assessment

- **The code and the release (v4.1.1) remain correct** — this is undisputed across all reviewers, now confirmed by 4 independent full-suite/test runs (Claude 447, mine 447 twice across rounds, plus 140-targeted runs ×3).
- **The documentation-integrity defect is real and was never disputed**: the original `50cb5ac0` consensus table was fabricated, provably from chronology. Claude's NOT PASS findings are accurate and I confirm them from primary evidence.
- **The fix is substantially landed but incomplete**: the rewrite removed the fabricated table and now cites real jobs with a truthful disclaimer about Grok/me, and its test claims now match my own re-runs. However, mislabeling Claude's `b74ced56` verdict as "Stance: PASS" when that job's verdict line reads `[VERDICT: NOT PASS]` is a remaining misrepresentation in the exact section that was supposed to become the honest history. The record cannot be considered clean until that cell is corrected.
- **My own errors are acknowledged** (§3) — three minor reporting inaccuracies, none affecting code verdicts; a durable-report revision should fold them in.

This is a one-cell documentation fix, not a design problem. No `[ESCALATE: PLANNER]`.

---

## 6. Verdict

The v4.1.1 code, tests, lockstep, and SemVer classification are fully verified and undisputed. But the release-validation record chain is not yet clean: `50cb5ac0`'s rewritten history table still misstates Claude's `b74ced56` verdict as PASS when the archived verdict is `[VERDICT: NOT PASS]` — the same class of consensus misrepresentation that triggered this entire round, in the very section written to correct it. Additionally my own promoted report carries three identified reporting errors that should be corrected in revision. Per this session's established documentation-integrity standard (applied consistently since `aca0b7e8`), the verdict on this round's cumulative state is:

[VERDICT: NOT PASS]