E04 — Accepted existing worklist F11/F2 reconciliation

Authored design — 2026-09-15. Section 4. This cascade elaborates the existing checklist item. It is not a dispatch, implementation receipt or completion verdict. Work outside WM-01–14 still requires Joe’s explicit greenlight; having a cascade is necessary but not permission.

Section 3/4 index · Exact TODO · Cascade JSON

Situation and design problem

Repair completion prose cannot replace independent acceptance of the exact F11/F2 reconciliation. The author, reviewed object and grounded discharge must identify the same work.

Governing checklist snapshot

E04 — Accepted existing worklist F11/F2 reconciliation. OPEN: exact author→independent review→gates→grounded discharge evidence for row 27; do not inherit a repair packet's completion prose.

This is the checklist’s dated evidence account, not a new deployment census. Existing source/test evidence keeps its bounded credit. The acceptance obligation above governs this design.

Pattern applications

E04-1 — Identify the precise reconciliation subject

Pattern: wm-purpose-and-account/assent-has-an-object-and-scope

Resolve worklist row 27, its F11/F2 requirement and the repair-024 discharge references. Produce immutable subject and acceptance-condition pins; do not substitute checklist WM-11 or a later similarly named repair.

E04-2 — Bind author evidence and gates

Pattern: wm-qualifying-run/certificate-and-world-must-meet

Retain the author’s exact changes and relevant gate commands/results against that subject. Preserve failing and missing results. A clean later tree is not proof that the original repair passed.

E04-3 — Obtain exact independent review

Pattern: wm-purpose-and-account/assent-has-an-object-and-scope

Bind the reviewer’s actual action, scope and verdict to the subject and gates. Reviewer-authored fixes require their own independent acceptance; an agent name in a casting table is insufficient.

E04-4 — Verify grounded discharge

Pattern: wm-qualifying-run/certificate-and-world-must-meet

Join the accepted reconciliation to the actual discharge evidence and its semantic conditions. Publish only the bounded verdict the evidence supports, keeping source acceptance distinct from full certificate or run qualification.

Composition and interfaces

Each node’s stated artifact is the input or constraint for the related node below. These are design dependencies, not a claim that a runtime scheduler automatically fires patterns. Existing WM producers are reused through the linked contracts; no second implementation is implied.

Retain the actual subject, source/model revision, task/occurrence, cutoff, producer and consumer for each interface. A missing field is a named gap; a default that changes the meaning is not an adapter. Reuse existing records where they satisfy these obligations. If a new component is indispensable, identify its exact TODO/cascade clause before seeking a separately bounded implementation instruction.

Worked situation

A repair packet says complete, but the reviewer accepted only its source while the discharge remains absent. E04 stays open until the missing join is real; the packet title cannot supply it.

This is a distinguishing design example, not a claimed production experiment.

Implementation sequence and closure evidence

1. Bind the first application to the actual source, task and authority. Resolve the decisions below before their dependent change; do not reproduce a known gap merely to claim activity.
2. Implement only the specifically dispatched producer/consumer change from the middle applications. Retain the meaningful pre-change failure and relevant post-change controls; do not start a general infrastructure project.
3. Acquire the final application’s evidence and independent review. Compare it against every clause of the exact TODO, identifying any still-open dependency. Source, tests, serving state, ordinary use and whole-run validation receive different credit.

Distinguishing controls: Reject wrong F11 referent, review of earlier bytes, missing gate output, self-reviewed fixes and discharge for another occurrence.

Closure rule: every part of the quoted obligation must be supported by the indicated artifacts and actual connections. A useful rejection proves the rejecting boundary only. One accepted subclause does not tick the whole item. A bellback must supply the exact reviewed subject, executed checks, independent verdict and remaining clauses.

Dependencies and authority boundaries

E03 · R9 · E02

Unavailable historical evidence is identified, not manufactured. Any new repair must be separately authorized within this obligation.

Dependency links describe required interfaces; they do not authorize work on those items. No implementation outside the existing TODO list is approved. Publication does not select a numerical law, settle an unresolved operator ruling or authorize a run.

Pattern and source scope

All seeded patterns are applied above. The JSON pins their source bytes and the governing checklist/rulings. Historical formulas, thresholds and examples in a pattern remain scoped examples unless the governing contract adopts them. This draft adds no pattern-library entries and claims no independent semantic ratification.