diff --git a/docs/roadmap.md b/docs/roadmap.md
index 2086198..e1c093f 100644
--- a/docs/roadmap.md
+++ b/docs/roadmap.md
@@ -40,10 +40,17 @@ clean. Pick the next milestone from P2.)_
 
 ## P1 — Next
 
-- [ ] **\[milestone\]** Iteration discipline — structural recursion +
+- [~] **\[milestone\]** Iteration discipline — structural recursion +
   named `loop`/`recur`; recursion-by-call restricted; `tail-app`
-  retired. The iteration story of the language, decided in principle
-  2026-05-15. Two constructs survive, one is removed:
+  retired. Spec `docs/specs/2026-05-15-iteration-discipline.md`
+  (approved fda9b78; scope-corrected 2018178/10a0595). **Status
+  2026-05-15: it.1 SHIPPED (96db54d — loop/recur additive), it.2
+  SHIPPED (a4be1e5 — guardedness checker + first real Diverge
+  effect), it.3 BLOCKED on a surfaced fundamental design fork (see
+  "The blocking fork" below — needs a user design decision + a new
+  iteration it.2b before it.3 can re-dispatch).** The iteration
+  story of the language, decided in principle 2026-05-15. Two
+  constructs survive, one is removed:
   - **Structural recursion stays — and becomes total-by-construction.**
     A recursive call is permitted iff it is structurally guarded:
     each recursive call is on a constructor-smaller component of an
@@ -85,30 +92,90 @@ clean. Pick the next milestone from P2.)_
   LLM-natural *and* their bug class is closed by construction; a bare
   `while` is exactly what clause 3 rejects).
 
-  **The open spec question (the real brainstorm work).** Not "whether"
-  but the precise definition of "structurally smaller" / the
-  guardedness check. Two hard points: (1) *mutual* structural
-  recursion (needs a measure / size over the ADT, not just a
-  one-argument syntactic decrease); (2) the accumulator-carrying
-  structural walk — `foldl`-shaped, simultaneously structural *and*
-  tail-shaped — the spec must decide whether it counts as structural
-  recursion (a plain call) or must be expressed as `loop`/`recur`.
-  This is the load-bearing spec decision; brainstorm + grounding-check
-  own it.
+  **Original open spec questions — RESOLVED in it.2 (a4be1e5).**
+  (1) *mutual* structural recursion → the conservative same-ADT-family
+  rule (connected-components union-find over the type-reference
+  graph; admits tree/forest, even/odd-over-Nat, mutual JSON; a
+  general size-measure ordering stays out of scope). (2) the
+  `foldl`-shaped accumulator-carrying structural walk → **counts as
+  structural recursion** (plain, pure, total — only the structural
+  argument must decrease; accumulator positions are unconstrained).
+  Both shipped and pinned.
+
+  **The blocking fork (it.3-surfaced 2026-05-15 — needs a USER
+  design decision; touches the purity pillar the user co-designed).**
+  The milestone's totality thesis recognised exactly ONE
+  total-by-construction recursion scheme: structural-over-an-acyclic-
+  ADT (Decision 10). The it.3 mandated corpus sweep proved this is
+  *incomplete*. Six corpus fixtures contain the single most
+  LLM-natural tree-builder shape:
+  `build(d: Int) = if d==0 then Leaf else Node(1, build(d-1), build(d-1))`.
+  It is provably terminating, but: **not** ADT-structural (`d` is
+  `Int`, no constructor-smaller component) and **not** `loop`/`recur`-
+  able (it is *branching/double* recursion; `recur` is a single
+  tail-position back-edge — a balanced-tree build is not a tail
+  loop; the only `loop` form is a hand-rolled explicit-stack
+  worklist, which no LLM writes). So the milestone *as-specified*
+  makes a trivially-total, maximally-natural function
+  **inexpressible** — failing its own feature-acceptance criterion
+  (clause 1: the LLM reaches for `build(d-1),build(d-1)`; clause 2:
+  the milestone would *remove* expressivity). This is a real
+  design-thesis gap, not a migration nuisance: there is a SECOND
+  canonical total-by-construction scheme the design overlooked —
+  **well-founded recursion on a strictly-decreasing non-negative
+  integer measure** (`f(0)=base; f(n)=…f(n-1)…`, branching allowed).
+
+  **Decision the user must make** (it trades against the purity
+  pillar — Int ≠ ℕ; AILang has no `Nat`/refinement types, so
+  Int-bounded recursion is total only for *non-negative entry*):
+  - **A1 (RECOMMENDED).** Make the totality story a *trichotomy*:
+    ADT-structural | Int-bounded-well-founded | explicit `loop`/`recur`.
+    Accept Int-bounded recursion (recursive call on `p - <pos-lit>`
+    with a non-recursing base guard, branching allowed) as a
+    *second total-by-construction class*, with one documented
+    obligation: non-negative entry (a negative seed diverges — the
+    same precondition class as array-bounds the language already
+    lives with). Restores the entire `f(n-1)` recursion family (the
+    second-most-common shape in any corpus); keeps all 6 fixtures
+    verbatim; the trichotomy is *more* complete, not less principled.
+    Rationale is the language's own gate: a milestone that makes
+    `build(d)` inexpressible cannot pass the feature-acceptance
+    criterion. *Why this is a user call:* it concedes "total by
+    construction, sign nothing" → "total by construction modulo one
+    documented non-negative-entry obligation" — a dilution of a
+    purity pillar the user personally weighted in the original
+    Socratic design dialogue.
+  - **A2.** Introduce a `Nat` type; accept Int-bounded recursion
+    only on `Nat` — preserves zero-precondition purity, but `Nat`
+    is its own sub-milestone and an LLM writes `depth: Int` unless
+    the prelude makes `Nat` the natural default (clause-1 friction).
+  - **A3 / B / C (not recommended).** Strict-dichotomy +
+    explicit-worklist (fails clause 1 — no LLM hand-rolls a stack
+    for tree-build); a narrow carve-out predicate (the patch smell);
+    reshaping the LLM-natural fixtures (forbidden —
+    `feedback_dont_adapt_tests_to_bugs`).
+
+  **If A1 (or A2): new iteration it.2b** — additive widening of the
+  it.2 guardedness checker to also accept Int-bounded (incl.
+  branching) recursion as total; no removal. After it.2b the 6
+  fixtures check clean with zero migration; it.3 then re-dispatches
+  from c992eb9 (the `bench/it3-oracle/` 40-fixture behavioural
+  oracle is preserved and reused; nothing in it.3 was destructive).
+  The it.3 RC-RSS/18g.1 load-bearing risk (Task 5.5/5b) is still
+  UNTESTED — must not be treated as resolved by the milestone-close
+  audit.
 
   **Relation to Stateful islands.** This entry owns the iteration
   story and *supersedes* the "while-loops legal" scope bullet of the
   Stateful-islands milestone below. The genuinely-escaping
   mutable-state path (`ref a` / `MutArray a` / `Stateful a b` /
-  `pipe`) is unaffected and stays in Stateful-islands — that is the
-  deliberately-fenced streaming escape hatch for *escaping* state,
-  not the default iteration story, and F1 no longer motivates it.
+  `pipe`) is unaffected and stays in Stateful-islands.
 
-  - context: 2026-05-15 chat — design convergence from the
-    mut-local fieldtest (F1) through the fenced-`while` /
-    `!Mut`-visibility dead end to the structural-recursion +
-    named-loop synthesis. Pending brainstorm produces
-    `docs/specs/<date>-iteration-discipline.md`.
+  - context: spec `docs/specs/2026-05-15-iteration-discipline.md`;
+    per-iter journals 2026-05-15-iter-it.1 (shipped), -it.2
+    (shipped), -it.3 (BLOCKED — the design fork above). Next action
+    is a USER decision on the blocking fork (A1 recommended), then
+    iteration it.2b, then it.3 re-dispatch from c992eb9.
 
 - [x] **\[milestone\]** Heap-`Str` ABI — runtime infrastructure for
   malloc-backed, refcounted `Str` values alongside the existing