fix(ci): RQ-64-DEPS — the MINORHOLD exit said nothing about the tree the suite ran on - #1186

...ng about the tree the suite ran on
The artifact's original premise ("the hold has no exit") was too strong. The
workflow states one at dependabot-auto-merge.yml:20 — "a hold is a delay, never
a block: merge a held bump BY HAND once the FULL suite is green ... the
discriminator is CI, not a maintainer's read of the diff." That criterion is
correct. The premise is corrected in the artifact rather than edited away, the
third premise correction this release and the same discipline RQ-64-FLOORPROSE
got.
What the exit omitted is everything about the TREE THE SUITE RAN ON, which is
what made it unusable in practice:
1. Base freshness is part of "green". #1106/#1107/#1110 each showed exactly one
 red — `Rivet Federated Graph (advisory)` — which is GREEN on main, measured
 on trees whose merge-base was four days and one release stale. Neither that
 red nor a green would have attributed anything to the bump.
2. The refresh mechanism can be permanently gone. Those three each carry a human
 `Merge branch 'main' into dependabot/...` commit, and dependabot refuses to
 rebase a branch with foreign commits — it said so on all three at 06:05Z.
 Merging main into a dependabot branch to freshen it is the move that destroys
 the ability to freshen it. Now written down, because it is not obvious and it
 is not reversible.
3. A bump nobody evaluates needs a disposition. These accumulated for a week
 because nothing required an answer. "Still open" is not a disposition.
None of this loosens the hold — 0.x-minor is breaking under semver and the
ordeal 0.9->0.12 hang cost days. It makes the exit precise enough to use, which
is what keeps a hold a delay rather than an accumulator.
Verified: claim_check 59/59 (the MINORHOLD count-eq patterns are untouched —
the added text deliberately avoids them), workflow parses, rivet validate at
main's 40-error baseline with 0 broken cross-refs.
Refs #965
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YJK5LZZEkV5smCY1jKn18L 

...` matched `41.6 %`
The plan comment asserted that VG-009 and VCR-REACH-002 both still state
aarch64 accepts 1.6 %. Only the second is true.
VG-009's only "1.6" is the tail of "41.6 %", a line-coverage figure for
synth-backend-riscv/src/backend.rs, framed "measured at v0.54.0" — correctly
dated history, and untouched since #918. Flagging it would have been a false
red on a properly dated citation.
Measured and reported by the RQ-64-SCOPEGAP lane, which was briefed with
explicit permission to return a negative result and used it. The claim was
mine: it came from a grep for `1.6`, which returns OCCURRENCES and cannot
return FRAMING. Same failure that produced v0.62's devirtualization claim,
and the correction is left visible beside the original rather than edited
away — the scoping error is the same shape the artifact is about.
The real population the artifact should have named is larger and of a
different kind: eight artifacts restating the repo's own proof counts as
undated present-tense fact ("188 Qed / 52 Admitted", six months stale
against a number CLAUDE.md itself count-eq-pins).
`chore` deliberately, not `fix`: naming RQ-64-SCOPEGAP in a delivery-shaped
subject would oblige R4 to find that artifact's status flip in THIS PR, and
it belongs to #1182.
Verified: rivet validate at main's 40-error baseline, 0 broken cross-refs;
status_evidence_check exit 0.
Refs #1085
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YJK5LZZEkV5smCY1jKn18L 

...pendabot commands, measured by probe
`@dependabot recreate` inside BACKTICKS is silently ignored. Measured
2026年09月07日: three held PRs sat unchanged for over half an hour after a
backticked command; the identical command posted UNFORMATTED on #1106 was acted
on within minutes, and #1107/#1110 followed once reposted plain.
Worth writing down for two reasons. The failure is indistinguishable from "the
bot is slow", which is how it was misdiagnosed here. And the only reason it
became a measurement rather than a guess is that the plain form was probed on
ONE PR before being repeated on all of them — the difference between a
controlled test and three identical shots in the dark.
Refs #965
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YJK5LZZEkV5smCY1jKn18L 

...s stays proposed (half the done-when)
R4 is satisfied by fields.landed rather than a status flip, deliberately: the
exit condition landed but the four held PRs have no disposition yet, and
claiming `implemented` on half a criterion is the shape this release keeps
finding in other people's gates.
Refs #965
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YJK5LZZEkV5smCY1jKn18L