check_all runs every check stage even when one fails; malformed dates are
reported rather than aborting; accepted findings and closure evidence are
shown; defer requires a valid future date. Adds SCOPE.md, the scope
assessment, the open-findings source review and a unittest suite. Stops
tracking __pycache__.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 6903@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8319e8a8-ffa6-4eb3-b8bf-b29945628f89
RISK-F-0002's fix_tracking now names ZONE-WP-0001 / WARDEN-WP-0032, with
the superseded pair kept beside it — the register had told ops-warden the
path had changed and then left the old ids in the file.
An unresolvable fix_tracking (TEN-IN-0002 is an intake, not a workplan)
printed nothing at all, which reads identically to a finding with no
tracking. It now says so by name. Both ZONE-WP-0001 and WARDEN-WP-0032
read proposed, which is the true state of the successor.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
fix_tracker.py resolves fix_tracking against the owning repo's workplan
file — the ADR-001 source of truth — and uses the file's last commit date
as the honest answer to 'has this moved', independent of whether the
register looked. Archived workplans are searched too, so a finished fix
that was filed away does not read as missing.
First run, three findings it should have known about:
RISK-F-0005 — AUDIT-WP-0008-T04 has read done since 2026-08-18. The fix
this finding asked for has landed and the register spent three days not
knowing. Now mitigated, embargo lifted, disclosure public. Not fixed:
that needs a probe, and T05's adversarial evidence artifact still reads
wait.
RISK-F-0002 — both tracked records were closed before the finding was
filed: WARDEN-WP-0007 archived 2026-07-08, FLEX-WP-0007 finished
2026-06-29, against a finding of 2026-08-18 that names FLEX-WP-0007 as
the blocker. Routed as a question, not a conclusion.
Four findings carry no fix tracking at all, which the report now says out
loud rather than leaving as an empty field.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
