Fix a self-contradiction, two stale numbers, and dead citations in the docs

ADAPTERS.md

@@ -112,9 +112,11 @@ add/rem against the current assignees.
 
 **Status vocabulary is per list, and casing is load-bearing.** ClickUp rejects a status whose
 spelling does not match that list's own vocabulary. The adapter reads the vocabulary and sends back
-the tracker's exact casing, with the fallback chain `not started` → `to do` → `todo` → first
-`type=="open"`. A status that does not exist **fails loudly**, rather than leaving the card where it
-was and reporting success.
+the tracker's exact casing. When the model asks for `not started` (what it emits by default; every
+board spells it differently), the adapter tries exact-name matches against the list's own vocabulary
+in order: `to do` → `todo` → `open`. It matches on the status's name, not its ClickUp `type` field —
+a list whose "open" bucket is spelled anything else won't match. A status that does not exist
+**fails loudly**, rather than leaving the card where it was and reporting success.
 
 **Auth headers differ and neither is guessable.** ClickUp takes the raw token with **no `Bearer`
 prefix**. The ClickUp fake rejects a `Bearer ` prefix specifically, so an adapter that adds one fails
@@ -229,8 +231,8 @@ timestamp ISO and none of them epoch-zero — which is the check that matters, b
 which exercises the multipart walk and the base64url decode against mail a person actually sent
 rather than a fixture built to be walkable.
 
-**Drive: live-verified, 2026-08-13**, against a sheet carrying two comments — one open, one resolved,
-with a reply on the resolved one. File metadata, revisions and comments all confirmed: the name
+**Drive: live-verified, 2026-08-13**, against a sheet carrying two comments, each with one reply —
+one thread open, one resolved. File metadata, revisions and comments all confirmed: the name
 resolves, revisions carry an author and an ISO `modifiedTime`, and the comment came back with author,
 content and timestamp intact.
 

AGENTS.md

@@ -128,11 +128,13 @@ happened to say on one day; if the feature needed a model to disagree in order t
 the demonstration would be the weather. But it does mean the honest claim is **"the path is proven by
 test, not by recording"** — and a reader who wants to see it fire should run the tests, not the demo.
 
-### This is what §5's "authority to write" means
+### This is what "authority to write" means
 
-PRD §5 describes the Board agent as *"the orchestrator above the role agents, holding board state and
-authority to write."* Read literally that sounds like a write handle, and building it that way would
-put a model in the write path and cost the guarantee the README leads with.
+The internal spec this repo was built from describes the Board agent as *"the orchestrator above the
+role agents, holding board state and authority to write."* Read literally that sounds like a write
+handle, and building it that way would put a model in the write path and cost the guarantee the
+README leads with. (That spec is private and not shipped in this repo — the quote is given here in
+full so the argument stands on its own without it.)
 
 **Production does not work that way either.** Its board agent proposes, and one script enforces the
 protected-status guard, the duplicate check and read-only mode. "Authority to write" there means *its

ARCHITECTURE.md

@@ -209,14 +209,17 @@ only one of them involves a model at the moment of blocking.
 
 | | Gates | Decided by |
 |---|---|---|
-| **Pure code over structured data** | unknown list key · assignee not in team roster · assignee not valid for list · referenced/parent/RELATE task id not on the board · subtask list ≠ parent list · RELATE self-link · evidence not cited · uncertain field(s) · vague update — card not confirmed · update — card match not confident · possible missed duplicate · registry degraded · **critical — credentials / client PII / production deploy / client-facing send** |  The board, the registry, and a literal read of the manifest. No model is consulted. |
+| **Pure code over structured data** | unknown list key · assignee not in team roster · assignee not valid for list · referenced task id not on the board · parent task id not on the board · RELATE link id not on the board · subtask list ≠ parent list · RELATE self-link · evidence not cited · uncertain field(s) · unresolvable field(s) · vague update — card not confirmed · update — card match not confident · possible missed duplicate · possible intra-run duplicate · over-subtasking · conflicting updates to the same card · uncategorized · registry degraded · independent verification unavailable · **critical — credentials / client PII / production deploy / client-facing send** |  The board, the registry, and a literal read of the manifest. No model is consulted. |
 | **A code rule over a model's stated verdict** | legitimacy — may not be a trackable task | `legitimacyHolds()` combines Pass 2b's legitimacy verdict with 2a's confidence and the source's ASR provenance — but its `not_a_task` branch fires on the verdict alone, no other input required. Genuinely a model decision, not a softened one. |
 | **Two independent model reads disagreeing** | category dispute | A different *shape* of model decision — a disagreement between two reads, not a threshold on one — but not the only gate a live model verdict can decide. |
 
 **This is the opposite of what the design anticipated.** The system this was extracted from expected
-deterministic blocking to be the rare case and model judgement the norm; here thirteen of fifteen
-gates never ask a model anything. That is not an accident of porting — it is what happens when the
-model's job is narrowed to producing a *manifest* and every structural claim in that manifest is
+deterministic blocking to be the rare case and model judgement the norm; here twenty-two of
+twenty-four named gates never ask a model anything (`grep -rohE "gate: [\`'\"][^\`'\"]*[\`'\"]"
+src/pipeline/gates/ src/pipeline/passes/contractCheck.ts | sort -u | wc -l`, plus the two
+constant-named gates it misses — re-derive it yourself rather than trust this number, since it has
+already drifted once as gates were added). That is not an accident of porting — it is what happens
+when the model's job is narrowed to producing a *manifest* and every structural claim in that manifest is
 checked against data the pipeline already holds.
 
 The practical consequence: **most holds are reproducible.** Feed the same manifest and board twice

LIMITATIONS.md

@@ -328,8 +328,10 @@ them sits directly under the claim that human-in-the-loop is this system's stron
 
 ### The approval surface is a CLI, not a chat app
 
-**The gates that decide to hold are here in full.** All fifteen of them, with the ordering, the
-questions, and the persistence. What is not here is production's asking-and-answering surface: ten
+**The gates that decide to hold are here in full.** All of them — twenty-two pure-code, two decided
+by a model's verdict (see [ARCHITECTURE.md](ARCHITECTURE.md#human-holds) for the count and how to
+re-derive it yourself) — with the ordering, the questions, and the persistence. What is not here is
+production's asking-and-answering surface: ten
 Block Kit modules — clarify, duplicate-resolution, critical approval, task rating — with modals,
 per-actor authorisation so the wrong person cannot resolve someone else's question, and TTLs on
 pending slots. Roughly 4,600 lines.

PROVIDERS.md

@@ -21,12 +21,12 @@ written. Re-derive it with `npm run demo` and `npm run demo -- --provider anthro
 
 | Scenario | DeepSeek | Claude | |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| `01-meeting-mixed` | 6 items · 4 created | 6 items · **3 created** (UPDATE 2 / SUBTASK 1 vs 1 / 2) | differs |
+| `01-meeting-mixed` | 6 items · 3 created | 6 items · **3 created** (UPDATE 2 / SUBTASK 1 vs 1 / 2) | differs |
 | `02-meeting-duplicates` | 2 items · 0 created | 2 items · 0 created | identical |
 | `03-meeting-noise` | 0 items | 0 items | identical |
 | `04-channel-messages` | 4 items · 3 created | **3 items · 2 created** | differs |
 | `05-corrections` | 1 item · 1 created | 1 item · 1 created | identical |
-| `06-github-activity` | 4 items · 0 created · 2 held | 4 items · **1 created · 1 held** | differs |
+| `06-github-activity` | 4 items · 0 created · 2 held | 4 items · **1 created · 2 held** | differs |
 | `07-email-thread` | 2 items · 1 created | **1 item** · 1 created | differs |
 | `08-drive-activity` | 4 items · 2 created | **1 item · 0 created** | differs |
 

README.md

@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 # Triage
 
-A production ops-agent pipeline: meeting transcripts, channel logs, GitHub activity, email threads
-and document activity in — governed tracker writes out, with human-in-the-loop gates on everything
-it is not sure about.
+Built by [Agent Loopr](https://github.com/agentloopr). A production ops-agent pipeline: meeting
+transcripts, channel logs, GitHub activity, email threads and document activity in — governed tracker
+writes out, with human-in-the-loop gates on everything it is not sure about.
 
 ![Eight scenarios running offline through the real prompts, parsers and gates, then a redelivery that costs zero tokens](assets/demo.gif)
 
-*Real captured output, replayed at reading speed — the actual run takes ~40ms. Nothing above is staged.*
+*Real captured output, replayed at reading speed — the actual run takes under a second. Nothing above is staged.*
 
 ```bash
 npm ci
-npm run demo             # 8 scenarios, offline, ~40ms, no API key
+npm run demo             # 8 scenarios, offline, under a second, no API key
 npm run demo -- --twice  # a redelivery costs zero tokens
 ```
 
@@ -40,8 +40,9 @@ does not exist, and the only alternative — a model grading a model — is a sy
 itself. Volume and hold rate are honest; accuracy is not reported. See
 [LIMITATIONS.md](LIMITATIONS.md).
 
-It is extracted from a system that has been running in production. **The architecture is identical to
-what we run; the tuned few-shot examples are replaced with generic ones.**
+It is extracted from a system that has been running in production. **The core structure is what we
+run** — the passes, the gates, the blind second read — **with the tuned few-shot examples replaced by
+generic ones and one real generalization on top** (see below).
 [EXTRACTION.md](EXTRACTION.md) records exactly what changed on the way out and why.
 
 ### What this is one half of
@@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ shapes of input:
 | | Agent path | This repo |
 |---|---|---|
 | Input | one conversational request, ambiguous, a human present | 6–14 items, uniform policy, nobody watching |
-| Decides by | a model, over a long tool-using loop | deterministic code, in passes 2a/2b |
+| Decides by | a model, over a long tool-using loop | deterministic code, in two passes — categorize, then a blind re-check (the shape is below) |
 | Reaches the tracker via | the same single writer | the same single writer |
 
 **This repo is the second path**, and it is the one worth publishing: an agent is good at one
@@ -96,10 +97,10 @@ the real parsers and the real gates:
 
 ```bash
 npm ci
-npm run demo                           # all eight scenarios, offline, ~40ms
+npm run demo                           # all eight scenarios, offline, under a second
 npm run demo -- --twice                # proves a redelivery costs zero tokens
 npm run demo -- --provider anthropic   # the same scenarios, replayed from a Claude recording
-npm run demo -- --agents               # with the agent layer on (PRD §5), also offline
+npm run demo -- --agents               # with the agent layer on (see AGENTS.md), also offline
 ```
 
 ```
@@ -209,7 +210,7 @@ These are the **only** paths that need credentials. `pull` plans without writing
 `--write`; `poll` and `serve` write by default (`poll --dry-run` to plan only). Every fixture, test
 and demo stays offline because they start from a recorded payload rather than a live read.
 
-**An optional agent layer** (PRD §5) sits between the gates and the writer: a board agent that
+**An optional agent layer** sits between the gates and the writer: a board agent that
 delegates to eight role agents with **read-only** tools. It is off by default. It may **propose** a
 different category, list, assignee or description — and every proposal is re-run through the same
 gates, so one the gates refuse becomes a hold rather than a write. **The agent never writes, and