E10 — Closure, publication and agreement

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

Agreement has an exact object and scope. A list of agent names or assent to an earlier honest draft cannot certify a changed completion account.

Governing checklist snapshot

E10 — Closure, publication and agreement. OPEN: all required owners ratify this exact account; record each participant's role/evidence basis, unresolved roster candidates and documented succession; keep roster completeness unresolved until reconciled. Paper/board status must point to the agreed revision. Joe retains acceptance of the qualifying fact.

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

E10-1 — Resolve responsibility and succession

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

Identify each required owner/reviewer from the evidence relied upon, role and current authority. Retain unresolved historical candidates, unavailable seats and documented succession. Do not infer exhaustive roster from currently connected agents.

E10-2 — Prepare the explained closure object

Pattern: wm-purpose-and-account/explain-before-recommissioning

Assemble the exact checklist/paper/board account with evidence and remaining uncertainty, using the cascades to explain the claimed behavior. Freeze review bytes and hash; publication of a design is not authorization to build it.

E10-3 — Acquire scoped explicit assent

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

Ask required participants to review that object, retain their exact scope and corrections and distinguish obligation assent from implementation/qualification acceptance. Silence, usage limits and prior packet reviews are not agreement.

E10-4 — Publish the agreed revision and obtain acceptance

Pattern: wm-purpose-and-account/explain-before-recommissioning

Reconcile changes with renewed affected assent, publish the exact agreed account and verify delivered identity. Keep Joe’s acceptance of the qualifying fact distinct from approval of the wording or design.

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 reviewer agrees to a truthful incomplete account, then the page gains a completed checkbox. That assent cannot be carried over as certification of the newly asserted fact. The changed claim needs its own evidence and review.

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 hash, counted silence, unreviewed successor bytes, missing owner basis and board/page divergence. Include conditional assent and a documented succession case.

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

E05 · E06 · E07 · E08 · E09

Roster completeness and Joe’s qualifying acceptance remain explicit gates; unavailable agents require authority resolution, not invented assent.

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.