[scbrown]

The release-plz pipeline currently calls crates.yml as a reusable workflow. crates.io rejects its OIDC authentication because the caller is release-plz.yml, while the configured trusted publisher expects crates.yml. The failed run is 37628308831: package verification passed, authentication returned HTTP400, and publishing never ran.

Dispatch crates.yml as a separate workflow with the exact new release tag instead. Only the dispatch job receives actions:write; it no longer requests an ID token. The publishing workflow requires a tag, checks its own workflow identity and repository before checkout/authentication, and checks out refs/tags/<tag>. Dry runs continue to skip both authentication and publication. No crates.io account configuration changes.

Validation: 11 offline controls pass under a clean HOME escape guard. They execute the production dispatcher and publisher validation shell, accept stable/prerelease/build tags, reject forks, the former reusable-caller identity, missing/invalid tags, and propagate a failed dispatch without retry. Workflow YAML parses successfully. The controls run in ordinary PR CI.

Observed before: the reusable caller produced HTTP400, expected crates.yml but received release-plz.yml. Source controls after: the dispatcher invokes a separate crates.yml workflow at main with an explicit tag; the former caller identity is refused before authentication. A hosted dry run is still outstanding; it will not prove successful registry authentication because that step is deliberately skipped.

GitHub documents that reusable workflows retain caller identity and that workflow_dispatch is a GITHUB_TOKEN trigger exception.

Bead: aegis-8t76.1

Overlap preflight: 8d2795a1c06e2861917ef8a04bf07f0a4d8a25e03375a63b6f9b9486d84b180b

• PR fix(render): honor thickness on semantic line regions #25 @ 4802322: independent — Disjoint source paths. This publisher repair is the prerequisite and lands first; the semantic-line fix in PR25 remains frozen until main is green. Separate branches preserve that operator-directed landing order; neither proposal absorbs or rewrites the other.

[scbrown]

SOURCE APPROVE at 276ef53 — Pixelsrc PR26. Native registration REFUSED; no accepted artifact.
One independent non-author post-green full review of all five paths, author Gennaro. Fresh hosted head: 13 SUCCESS + expected PyPI conditional SKIP. Current native classifier cf2db005 matches origin/main, exact record 81935fb30e3f01459f55fdd680e9bcbe06c699eb76a72c51024f43031aafba3a T3/unavailable null, base686b366c09313c31d5fd21f0f8b9571f8a30dd8c.
The proposal replaces the reusable crates caller with a separate workflow_dispatch of crates.yml at main carrying an explicit validated release tag. Only dispatch has actions:write; publication alone requests id-token:write. Publisher validates its repository/workflow and tag before checkout/authentication, checks out refs/tags/tag, and dry-run skips both auth and publication. No account/token configuration change or publication is authorized by this review.
Validation: 11 production-script/source controls PASS plus 6 independent production-validator controls (stable/prerelease/build positive, newline injection, Unicode digits, lookalike workflow path, fork workflow and old reusable caller negatives), both HOME157+5 CLEAN/command0. Whole inverse restores exact base tree713f37d15840679e2046c07bf4f037f2f3bdf8f1. Clean isolated detached review tree; no source edits, push, tag, upload or remote workflow dispatch.
Native review command REFUSED because exact base main has failed crates.io publish workflow367491690:push/check15368 crates.io / Publish to crates.io. This is the pre-existing publication failure the proposal addresses; no exception was fabricated or forced. Tim must obtain normal exact-base admission before recording/landing this retained source verdict. Hosted dry-run remains outstanding; actual registry authentication/publication is not proven by offline controls or this approval.
Evidence archive /srv/fleet/aegis/grant-pixelsrc26-review-20261024 includes current-risk.json, controls.guard.log, independent.guard.log, independent.py, inverse.patch and review-registration.log. The PR body links aegis-8t76.1, which actually tracks the separate line-thickness PR25; preserve that item's ownership/scope and use parent aegis-8t76 for this review evidence, not a closure of the thickness task.