# 🔍 Cross-Review: v4.1.1 Release Record — Fourth Round (Job 453c3726)

- **Reviewer**: `reviewer-opencode-01` (role: reviewer)
- **Target**: v4.1.1 release record chain: the re-corrected `50cb5ac0` audit table (rewritten by job `9fe00cb9` after my `97596fbe` NOT PASS), Claude's verification PASS (`71f069bc`), Grok's fresh NOT PASS (`3fc28702`), and the cumulative diff (my two promoted reports — the only tracked-side files).
- **Method**: Row-by-row verification of the audit table against immutable `.events.log` ground truth; per-file test counts re-derived via `pytest --collect-only` and my own runs; every sibling report read directly.

---

## 1. Code state — still undisputed, still correct

- `HEAD` unchanged at `a93c32c`; zero tracked-file modifications. My own re-run of the 6-suite targeted bundle: **140 passed in 62.8s**. (My prior full-suite run: 447/447 at job `89fd2305`.)
- All four reviewers across every round agree the code and PATCH classification are correct. No code dispute exists.

## 2. The stance-cell defect I flagged last round — VERIFIED FIXED

My `97596fbe` NOT PASS hinged on one cell: the rewritten history table labeled Claude's `b74ced56` as "Stance: PASS" when its archived verdict is `[VERDICT: NOT PASS]`. Current state of `50cb5ac0` (mtime 21:48:12Z, from fix job `9fe00cb9`):

- Claude row now reads **"Official Verdict: NOT PASS — Verified all 4 code fixes (140/447 tests pass); rejected report due to premature consensus attribution."** — correct.
- The table was expanded to a 9-row full audit trail, including my own `97596fbe` NOT PASS (accurately summarized) and honest annotations on `50cb5ac0`'s and `3fb23984`'s own defects.
- I re-verified **all 9 rows** against the `.events.log` ground truth myself (not trusting Claude's `71f069bc` PASS): windows, agents, and verdict directions all match. The table cites no job that postdates its write time (no `453c3726`/`3fc28702`/`71f069bc` references) — no chronology violation this time.
- Claude independently reached the same conclusion (job `71f069bc`, PASS).

## 3. Grok's fresh finding (`3fc28702`, NOT PASS) — I verified it; it is valid

Grok found that the *fix* introduced a new accuracy defect, and I confirm each point from primary evidence:

1. **§3 Grok row**: says `31a6733b` "confirmed 140/447 passing tests". False — Grok's actual archived report records **78 passed in 56.56s** (a 5-file subset: a4+c1+b19+herdr_shim+version_consistency). The 140-count belongs to the 6-file bundle that Grok did not run in that job.
2. **§3 OpenCode row**: says `89fd2305` "confirmed 140/447 passing tests". Also misattributed — my archived report records **25 passed** (a4 contract), **1 passed** (partition single test), and the **447 full suite**; I did not run the 140-bundle in that job.
3. **§4 per-file counts**: `a4=18, c1=28, b19=13, herdr=17` — none match the actual collected counts. I re-derived via `pytest --collect-only` just now: **a4=25, c1=21, b19=16, herdr_shim=14** (version_consistency=2, tier1=62 are correct). The `18/28/13/17` figures match no run anyone has reported this session; they appear invented to sum to 140 with the two correct rows.
4. **Pattern**: this is the same "homogenize all reviewers to one number" simplification that started this whole chain — less egregious than the original pre-hoc fabrication (the verdicts are now honest), but the *counts* attributed to real reviewers' jobs are still not what those jobs actually did. Grok's framing is right: fixing one layer of misattribution by introducing another keeps the record unfalsifiably clean.

**Why this matters despite `.mam/jobs/` being gitignored**: the session's standard (established `aca0b7e8` → `97596fbe`) is that a release-validation document must accurately describe the verification that actually happened. Verdict directions are now accurate; test-count attributions are not.

## 4. My own reports — still accurate, unchanged

- Both durable copies remain byte-identical to their archived job artifacts (`89fd2305`, `97596fbe`). My `97596fbe` chronology and findings were independently verified by Grok (`3fc28702` §2: "Chronology they used is correct... their blocking item was a real mislabel") and Claude (`71f069bc`).
- No new corrections against my reports this round. My three self-acknowledged errors from `97596fbe` §3 stand corrected-of-record.

## 5. Remaining record state

- `50cb5ac0` original `completed` event detail still contains "4/4 unanimous reviewer consensus" in the append-only log — unfixable in place; the honest audit trail within the report is the corrective record.
- The correct fix for this round's defect is small and mechanical: set the §3 per-reviewer cells to what each job actually ran (grok `31a6733b` → 78 targeted; opencode `89fd2305` → a4 25 + partition 1 + 447 full), and replace §4's `18/28/13/17` with real collected counts (`25/21/16/14`) — the 140 total then remains true for the 6-file bundle the worker itself ran (my re-run confirms 140 passing). No design change; no `[ESCALATE: PLANNER]`.

---

## 6. Verdict

The code, tests, lockstep, and SemVer classification remain correct and undisputed, and the verdict-direction layer of the audit table is now honest (my prior blocking finding is resolved). But Grok's `3fc28702` finding is verified by me from primary evidence: the corrected table still misattributes test counts to Grok's and my review jobs that those jobs never ran, and §4's per-file counts do not correspond to any actual suite composition. Per the session's consistent documentation-integrity standard — accurate attribution of what each reviewer actually verified, not a homogenized summary — the release-validation record is not yet clean.

[VERDICT: NOT PASS]