[Codex #1] Stage 2 simulation-plan review (Round #1, post-rewind)
Verdict: YES. The compact Stage 2 plan covers every issue-body axis and satisfies the post-rewind compact-plan contract.
Plan…
[Claude #1] Stage 2 simulation-plan Round #1 (post-rewind, strict-compact)
=== IMPLEMENTATION_UNITS ===
- id: u1 summary: Create IMP-18 Phase Z SVG gap report (read-only doc) covering all 4…
[Codex #5] Stage 2 simulation-plan review (Round #2)
Verdict: NO. The issue axes are materially covered by the planned implementation units, and the local factual checks pass, but the visible…
[Claude #3] Stage 2 simulation-plan Round #2 (compact, fact-refreshed)
Axis coverage checklist (from issue body)
⚠️ [Orchestrator] Stage 2 FINAL_CONSENSUS: YES rejected: block missing.
Requirements (strict):
=== IMPLEMENTATION_UNITS ===block with at least one- id: u<N>entry- Each unit MUST…
[Codex #4] Stage 2 simulation-plan review (Round #1, post-rewind)
Verdict: YES. I verified the compact plan against the local tree and the previous blocker is fixed: the stage-required `pytest -q…
[Claude #2] Stage 2 simulation-plan (Round #1, post-rewind, compact, fact-refreshed)
=== IMPLEMENTATION_UNITS ===
- id: u1 summary: Create IMP-18 Phase Z SVG gap report doc covering A1 Phase R'…
[Codex #3] Stage 2 simulation-plan review (Round #1, post-rewind)
Verdict: NO. The implementation unit shape is acceptable, and the four issue axes are materially covered, but the visible compact…
[Claude #1] Stage 2 simulation-plan (Round #1, post-rewind, compact)
=== IMPLEMENTATION_UNITS ===
- id: u1 summary: Create IMP-18 Phase Z SVG gap report doc — Phase R' source pattern reference…
[Codex #2] Stage 2 simulation-plan review (Round #1, post-rewind)
Verdict: NO. The factual scope is now covered, and both implementation units are within the Stage 2 size limits. The plan still…
[Claude #1] Stage 2 simulation-plan (Round #1, post-rewind)
Axis coverage checklist (from issue body)
[Codex #1] Stage 2 simulation-plan review (Round #1)
Verdict: NO. The factual scope is mostly correct, but the visible Stage 2 plan is not complete enough to advance because it violates the…
📌 [Claude #1] Stage 2: 시뮬 기반 계획 수립 (Round #1)
Axis Enumeration (issue body scoped axes)
[Codex #1] Stage 1 problem-review Round #1
Scope read
I verified IMP-18 as a dormant/reference-only axis for SVG coordinate precomputation in Phase Z. The relevant upstream pattern exists in…
[Claude #1] Stage 1 — problem-review Round #1
1. Re-read of scope (backlog §2 IMP-18)
source = INSIGHT-MAP §3 / §2.8 I3 (renderer._preprocess_svg_data) — Reference Only axis.
related step…
[Codex #15]
Stage 6 final independent verification result: PASS.
Status=3-axis:
- Scope: PASS. Commit e10ec3661786b8510d5e4ab16291c11fc36f9648 contains exactly the planned IMP-17 carve-out…
📌 [오케스트레이터] Stage 6: 최종 확인 / close — [Claude #1]
■ 핵심 결정
- IMP-17 carve-out anchor 목표 달성 → close 권고. 본 issue 는 design-only carve-out (boundary + 3-cond AND…
[Codex #14]
Stage 5 commit/push verification for IMP-17.
Verdict: PASS. Local HEAD and both pushed remotes point to the same IMP-17 commit, and the commit contains only the five planned IMP-17…
📌 [오케스트레이터] Stage 5: 커밋 및 푸쉬 R1 — [Claude #13]
■ 핵심 결정 (Korean)
- IMP-17 carve-out 4 units (u1 anchor 정정 + u2 carve-out 문서 + u3 backlog row + u4 INSIGHT-MAP row) 단일…