[don-petry]

Part of #551, "Trial P-61: an issue's type changes and a pull request linked by hand, each timed on the issue's timeline". Part of the slice-1 epic #182.

Grounding pending P-61. The canary trial is set up: issue #99 with no type, and pull request #98, ready, naming no issue. It waits on the Maintainer's run. When trials/P-61.json arrives, a follow-on change records it and grounds the two rules this PR adds to sim/grounding.py, or reports a failure. Nothing here depends on the trial's details beyond the event kinds and that each has a time.

What changes

Part	Change
schemas/issue-facts.schema.json	Each linked pull request gains link_events: [{action: connected|disconnected, at}], its links to the issue by hand in the Development box. The issue gains type_events: [{from, to, at}], its type set, changed and removed. Both are required and additive, as draft_events was (#553). Every example is updated
kernel/issue.py	readable_link_events: links alternate, the first is a link, none comes before the pull request opened, and they are in order. Two in one second are read. A closing keyword's link raises no event, and is read as carrying no time. readable_type_events: each change follows from the last, and the last leaves the type as it is now. Either one unreadable defers, as linked_unreadable or type_unreadable
Row 1	Two pull requests linked by hand before the first merge's second, neither closed before it, keep the issue held, merged_while_held, naming the two. This holds whichever was linked first, and when two queue merges land in one second. A rival linked in the merge's second, with no time (a keyword's), after the merge, unlinked before it, or closed before it, leaves the merge done. The merge's own link made in its second does too. That is decision 0132's same second, narrowed as the Factory Builder ruled on 2026-11-09
Type at the merge	Carried, but not read, while the Consumer entry has no history: ruling (b) on #541, carried by #552
tests/test_transitions.py	New moves: a person links the Factory's pull request by hand, and opens one of their own linked by hand. The queue merges from held by two hand links. The exploration reaches held by two links, and no change of State by the platform leaves held
sim/issues.py, sim/grounding.py	The world gives empty link_events and type_events, marked with two new rules that wait on P-61: a_link_by_hand_is_timed and a_type_change_is_timed
Design §4.1 row 1	States the two-links rule and what still carries no time

The boundary cases, each with its mutant, are what the Factory Builder asked for:

• two timed links before the merge, held;
• a rival in the same second, done;
• an untimed rival, done;
• one timed link after a rival's, held.

0132's own fixture, the Factory's merge beside an admitted outsider's in its second, still passes. There are 31 new mutants under "Issue 551", and 6 existing ones repointed to changed lines, all killed.

Record NNNN, number to be given at enqueue, after 0173. It replaces 0141, and keeps all of it but what 0141 said carries no time of a link by hand and a type. It amends decision 0132's row "What stays". 0141's Status now names it. Its Boundaries list only its own new rows; 0141's stay as 0141 lists them.

Protected paths: sim/issues.py, sim/grounding.py and tests/test_issue_simulator.py. Pre-approved by the Maintainer 2026-11-08, ruled by the Factory Builder. These edits only add the empty facts, their grounding marks, and the two pending rules.

Verify

Numbered make verify on an export of 98db6e1, with 0172 standing in: 1718 tests, with two failures, both from a boundary row naming trials/P-61.json as a wait, which is no planned part. 19ef9fb drops that row; the Decision says what waits. A full verify runs again at enqueue, after main is merged.

Reviews

Read	State
Claude + security	First read (19ef9fb): one blocking finding, a late admission moving done to held, plus no release, duplicates and a no-op type change. All fixed in round 1 (0d646aa). Round 1's read: one blocking finding, linking again after an unlinking cycling done. Fixed in round 2 (ec28e25), and the unlinker named as not read until P-61. Round 2's read: no regression; a rival's reopening, read as it stands now, is #672's and named in the record
Argon	First read: one minor point, the exploration's assertion; its merge from held is shown by a mutant instead. Round 1's read: record wording, fixed. Round 2's read: one mutant missing at the merge's second, added and killed
Muse	First read: its blocking finding was NNNN; it also found no release (fixed in round 1), a no-op type change (fixed) and a hands-off beside two links not excused (fixed in round 1)
Astra	not run
Codex	automatic

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: combsmith/software-factory
• Branch: main
• File: .coderabbit.yaml
• Commit: b6ce7b3
• Layers: Repository YAML
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 0a71cd78-1999-49df-ac36-8c143eb687fb

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• Trigger review

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary: ❌ Failed

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	❌ Failed 2026-11-09T04:43:50.251379Z We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex review to try again.	19ef9fb	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud