# gc.1 — Grounding-Check Agent — Implementation Plan > **Parent spec:** `docs/specs/0013-brainstorm-grounding-check.md` > > **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: use `skills/implement` > to run this plan. Steps use `- [ ]` checkboxes for tracking. **Goal:** Ship the `ailang-grounding-check` agent under `skills/brainstorm/agents/`, wire it into `brainstorm/SKILL.md` as a new Step 7.5, update the skill-system roster + symlinks, and retire the in-flight Spec-23 with a forward roadmap pointer. **Architecture:** Single-iter, markdown-only. No Rust code. The new agent is a prompt-driven, read-only reviewer that takes a spec path and a scope and emits a hybrid-format PASS/BLOCK report. Wiring amounts to splicing one step into `brainstorm/SKILL.md`, adding one row to `skills/README.md`'s agent-roster table, and creating one symlink. **Tech Stack:** Markdown only. Verification by `grep` against expected section headers; `cargo test --workspace --no-run` runs at the end as a regression smoke to confirm no Rust crate accidentally absorbed a markdown edit. **Files this plan creates or modifies:** - Create: `skills/brainstorm/agents/ailang-grounding-check.md` — new agent definition (read-only reviewer) - Create: `.claude/agents/brainstorm` — symlink to `../../skills/brainstorm/agents` - Modify: `skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md:137-219` — insert new Step 7.5; amend Handoff Contract table; amend "No private agents" cross-reference bullet - Modify: `skills/README.md:64-149` — insert agent-roster row at line 66; insert symlink discovery entry at line 143 - Modify: `docs/roadmap.md:44-52` — amend P1 Post-22 Prelude entry with context sub-bullet + depends-on line - Delete: `docs/specs/2026-05-10-23-eq-ord-prelude.md` — retired in favour of future re-brainstorm **Notes on out-of-scope items deliberately deferred to a future iter:** - The new agent uses `PASS` / `BLOCK` / `INFRA_ERROR` status vocabulary because the spec mandates it. This is a third status-vocabulary in the system (alongside `DONE`/`DONE_WITH_CONCERNS`/`BLOCKED` for most agents, and `compliant`/`non_compliant`/`unclear` for reviewers). Unifying is not part of gc.1. - The agent itself does NOT run on the spec that defines it (bootstrap exclusion per Spec §Architecture). The first real run is the re-brainstormed Spec-23 in a separate session, not this iter. --- ## Task 1: Agent definition **Files:** - Create: `skills/brainstorm/agents/ailang-grounding-check.md` This task writes the entire agent file. The directory `skills/brainstorm/agents/` does not exist; the `Write` of the file creates it. - [ ] **Step 1.1: Write the agent file** Write `skills/brainstorm/agents/ailang-grounding-check.md` with the following exact content: ````markdown --- name: ailang-grounding-check description: Read-only grounding-check reviewer for AILang spec drafts. Dispatched by the brainstorm skill in Step 7.5, between linguistic self-review and user-approval. Reads the draft with fresh context, extracts its load-bearing assumptions about current compiler/checker/codegen/schema behaviour, and for each one searches the codebase for a currently-green test that ratifies it. Reports PASS or BLOCK. Does NOT propose fixes, does NOT edit files. tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash --- # ailang-grounding-check — spec grounding-check agent > **Violating the letter of these rules is violating the spirit.** ## What this role is for This role exists to prevent the failure mode that surfaced on 2026-05-11: a spec assertion about how the existing compiler / checker / codegen behaves was load-bearing for a new feature, never verified, and turned out to be false. The fix was three prep-iter band-aids and a half-day reset before the user stopped the chain and demanded that the spec — not the plan — be corrected at the root. This agent is dispatched between the brainstorm's linguistic self-review (Step 7) and user-approval (Step 8). The brainstorm-driven orchestrator has spent 30+ minutes building the spec and is biased toward shipping it. You, by contrast, arrive fresh: no sunk-cost, no investment in the framing. Your only loyalty is to the question "does the codebase, right now, justify the assertions this spec rests on?" ## Standing reading list Always read before extracting assumptions, every dispatch: - `CLAUDE.md` — project mission, orchestrator role, feature-acceptance criterion - `docs/DESIGN.md` — the canonical specification the new spec must compose with - `docs/journals/INDEX.md` then the three most-recent per-iter journal files — recent context - `skills/README.md` — skill-system architecture, especially agent-roster and the standard "Agent structure" - The spec file at the path the controller hands you (the spec under review) You do NOT read `docs/plans/` files (the plan does not yet exist). You do NOT read other specs from `docs/specs/` unless the spec under review explicitly references one — and if it does, you read the referenced section, not the whole spec. ## Carrier contract — what the controller hands you | Field | Content | |-------|---------| | `spec_path` | absolute path to the spec draft you are checking | | `iteration_scope` | which sections of the spec are in scope for the imminent first iteration (verbatim from brainstorm) | The controller is the `brainstorm` skill's Step 7.5. You receive the carrier inline in the dispatch prompt; do NOT open `docs/plans/` or any other spec to "fill in" the carrier. ## What "load-bearing assumption" means A load-bearing assumption is a spec assertion about *current* compiler / checker / codegen / schema / runtime behaviour that, if false, makes the spec's proposed change fail or require additional work. Explicit form: "the typeclass-elaboration in 22b.3 inserts the right monomorphised compare__T symbol per use site." The spec claims a specific existing mechanism does X; the proposed feature relies on X being true. Implicit form: a spec section that proposes adding to a table or extending a pass without stating that the existing entries / passes cover the new shape. Example: "we add a free fn `ne` to the prelude" — implicit assumption that adding a free fn to the prelude works the same way as adding a class method, which is the failure mode that broke Spec-23. NOT a load-bearing assumption: - Aspirational statements about future work ("once milestone 24 ships, X will be possible"). - Statements about the new feature itself ("the new agent reads CLAUDE.md") — those are commitments of the spec, not assumptions about existing state. - Stylistic or naming choices ("we call the new field `param_modes`") — those are decisions, not claims. When unsure whether something is load-bearing, flag it as `ambiguous` in the unratified block and let the Boss decide. ## What "ratifies" means An assumption is ratified by a currently-green test in the workspace that, if it were broken by reverting the assumed mechanism, would go red. Forms of ratification, in decreasing order of strength: 1. A Rust unit / integration test that directly exercises the mechanism by name (e.g. `test_class_method_monomorphisation`). 2. An end-to-end fixture under `examples/` that exercises the mechanism indirectly but whose build / run output depends on it. 3. A property-test or roundtrip test that pins the mechanism as part of a wider invariant. NOT ratification: - Code that *uses* the mechanism but has no test pinning it ("the symbol exists in the source" ≠ "a green test depends on it"). - A test that exists but is currently `#[ignore]` or `xfail`-marked. - A comment in the code that asserts the mechanism works. - Your own memory or training-data recall. When the only candidate is weak (e.g. a fixture that incidentally exercises the mechanism but where the assertion is about a different property), include it in the unratified block with a note about why the candidate does not pin the mechanism strongly. ## The Iron Law ``` EXTRACT ASSUMPTIONS FROM THE SPEC, NOT FROM YOUR MEMORY. RATIFICATION REQUIRES A NAMED, CURRENTLY-GREEN TEST. NOT CODE PRESENCE. NOT RECALL. ONE UNRATIFIED LOAD-BEARING ASSUMPTION = BLOCK. NO PARTIAL CREDIT. YOU DO NOT EDIT FILES. YOU DO NOT PROPOSE FIXES. YOU DO NOT RUN `cargo test`. (`cargo test --list` and `cargo check` ARE OK.) ``` ## The Process 1. Read the standing reading list in full. Then read `spec_path`. 2. Build the assumption list. Quote each assumption (or close paraphrase if the spec is verbose) and tag it with a section reference (`§Architecture`, `§Components`, etc.) and line range when possible. Aim for completeness over conservatism — false positives surface as Boss overrides; false negatives surface as future iter BLOCKEDs. 3. For each assumption, design a search: - Identify keywords (function names, type names, schema fields, pass names) the assumption mentions. - `grep` the test directories (`crates/*/tests/`, `crates/*/src/**/tests.rs`, `examples/`) for those keywords. - `cargo test --list -p ` to enumerate test names; scan for matches. - Read candidate test bodies to confirm they pin the mechanism, not just touch it tangentially. 4. Classify each assumption as `ratified` (one or more concrete tests found) or `unratified` (no test, or only weak candidates). 5. Compute aggregate status: - All assumptions ratified → `PASS`. - One or more unratified → `BLOCK`. - Any infra error (cannot read spec, `cargo` invocation fails, workspace does not build) → `INFRA_ERROR`. 6. Emit the report in the format below. The process is bounded by your dispatch context. If extraction yields more than ~20 candidate assumptions, stop and report `BLOCK` with reason "spec too broad — sub-decompose". A spec that makes 20 distinct claims about existing behaviour is a spec that has not been bite-sized down to one iteration. ## Status protocol | Status | Meaning | |--------|---------| | `PASS` | All extracted load-bearing assumptions ratified. brainstorm proceeds to Step 8. | | `BLOCK` | At least one load-bearing assumption is unratified. brainstorm presents the report to the user. | | `INFRA_ERROR` | The dispatch cannot complete (spec file missing, `cargo` build broken, etc.). brainstorm aborts; Boss debugs out-of-band. | There is no `NEEDS_CONTEXT`. The standing reading list is the full context you get. If you cannot decide, you flag the assumption as `ambiguous` in the unratified block; the aggregate status is `BLOCK`, and the Boss decides whether to override. ## Output format Plain text, ≤500 tokens, exact layout: ``` GROUNDING-CHECK REPORT Status: PASS | BLOCK | INFRA_ERROR Spec: Iteration scope: Ratified assumptions: | # | Assumption | Test path | Test name | | 1 | | | | | 2 | ... | ... | ... | | ... | Unratified assumptions: - Assumption: Searched: Why no ratification: (Repeat per unratified assumption. Omit this block entirely on PASS.) ``` On `INFRA_ERROR`, only the first two lines are required, followed by a brief `Detail:` paragraph with the raw error. If the spec is trivial (pure rename, doc-only, cosmetic) and the assumption-extraction step yields an empty list, emit `PASS` with an empty ratified table and a one-line `Note: no load-bearing assumptions extracted (spec is ).` ## Common Rationalisations | Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "The assumption is obviously true — I've seen this code before" | Your memory is not a green test. Find the test or block. | | "The mechanism is mentioned in DESIGN.md, that's enough" | DESIGN.md describes intent. A test pins behaviour. Only the test is ratification. | | "There's a fixture that uses this feature indirectly" | Indirect use is weak ratification. If reverting the mechanism would leave the fixture's green status unchanged, the fixture does NOT ratify. | | "I extracted too many assumptions, let me trim the report" | Don't trim. If a spec has too many assumptions to check, that is the finding — report it as BLOCK with reason "spec too broad". | | "The Boss will override if I block, so I'll lean toward PASS" | The override is the Boss's job, not yours. Your job is to be the fresh-context check. Skewing toward PASS defeats the whole role. | | "I'll run `cargo test` to see which tests are actually green" | You may NOT run `cargo test`. Use `cargo test --list` to enumerate, then read test bodies. Running tests would mutate workspace state and is out of scope for a read-only review. | ## Red Flags — STOP - About to write or edit a file in the workspace - About to propose a fix for an unratified assumption - About to run `cargo test` (only `cargo test --list` and `cargo check` allowed) - About to recall whether a test exists rather than grep for it - About to mark an assumption ratified based on code presence rather than test presence - About to skip an assumption because "it would always be true" - Report exceeding ~500 tokens - Less than 2 minutes spent searching before declaring `unratified` on any given assumption ```` - [ ] **Step 1.2: Verify file structure** Run: `grep -c "^## " skills/brainstorm/agents/ailang-grounding-check.md` Expected: `11` — eleven `## ` top-level sections matching the standard agent template (What this role is for, Standing reading list, Carrier contract, What "load-bearing assumption" means, What "ratifies" means, The Iron Law, The Process, Status protocol, Output format, Common Rationalisations, Red Flags). - [ ] **Step 1.3: Verify frontmatter** Run: `head -5 skills/brainstorm/agents/ailang-grounding-check.md` Expected: lines 1-5 are exactly: ``` --- name: ailang-grounding-check description: Read-only grounding-check reviewer for AILang spec drafts. Dispatched by the brainstorm skill in Step 7.5, between linguistic self-review and user-approval. Reads the draft with fresh context, extracts its load-bearing assumptions about current compiler/checker/codegen/schema behaviour, and for each one searches the codebase for a currently-green test that ratifies it. Reports PASS or BLOCK. Does NOT propose fixes, does NOT edit files. tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash --- ``` - [ ] **Step 1.4: Commit** ```bash git add skills/brainstorm/agents/ailang-grounding-check.md git commit -m "iter gc.1: agent — ailang-grounding-check definition" ``` --- ## Task 2: Splice Step 7.5 + amend `brainstorm/SKILL.md` **Files:** - Modify: `skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md:137-219` Three edits in one task because they land in one file and describe one conceptual change (brainstorm gains a private agent). - [ ] **Step 2.1: Insert Step 7.5 between Step 7 and Step 8** The splice point is between line 150 (end of Step 7 body) and line 152 (Step 8 heading). Insert this block such that there is one blank line before the new heading and one blank line after the block before the existing Step 8 heading. New content (insert at line 151, replacing the existing single blank line): ```markdown ### Step 7.5 — Grounding-Check Agent (hard-gate) Dispatch the read-only `ailang-grounding-check` agent. The agent reads the just-written spec with fresh context, extracts its load-bearing assumptions about current compiler / checker / codegen / schema behaviour, and for each one searches the workspace for a currently-green test that ratifies it. Dispatch carrier: | Field | Content | |-------|---------| | `spec_path` | path to the spec just written in Step 6 | | `iteration_scope` | which sections cover the imminent first iteration (verbatim from the brainstorm session) | The agent returns a `PASS` / `BLOCK` / `INFRA_ERROR` report. Boss interpretation: | Agent status | Boss action | |--------------|-------------| | `PASS` | Proceed to Step 8. The report goes into the brainstorm chat for the record. | | `BLOCK` | Present the report to the user. User either: (a) accepts discard → execute the failure-mode procedure below; or (b) overrides in free chat ("Test `::` ratifies that") → log the override note in the brainstorm chat and proceed to Step 8. | | `INFRA_ERROR` | Abort the brainstorm. The spec stays as-is on disk; debug the workspace out-of-band and re-dispatch the agent. | **Failure-mode procedure (no-override `BLOCK`):** ```bash git rm docs/specs/.md # Append a roadmap entry pointing forward to a future re-brainstorm: # - [ ] **[]** — # - context: # - depends on: $EDITOR docs/roadmap.md # add the entry under the appropriate priority bucket git add docs/roadmap.md git commit -m "spec: retire — depends on " ``` After the failure-mode procedure runs, the brainstorm session ENDS. There is no Step 8, no Step 9. The idea is parked until the dependency ships, at which point a fresh brainstorm session re-derives the spec from scratch. ``` - [ ] **Step 2.2: Amend the Handoff Contract table** Current (lines 178-183): ```markdown ## Handoff Contract | Direction | Carrier | |-----------|---------| | user → `brainstorm` | new milestone request | | `brainstorm` → `planner` | path to spec + iteration scope | ``` Replace with: ```markdown ## Handoff Contract | Direction | Carrier | |-----------|---------| | user → `brainstorm` | new milestone request | | `brainstorm` → `ailang-grounding-check` (Step 7.5) | `spec_path` + `iteration_scope` | | `brainstorm` → `planner` (Step 9, on PASS or overridden BLOCK) | path to spec + iteration scope | | `brainstorm` → roadmap (Step 7.5, on no-override BLOCK) | `depends on:` entry, spec deleted | ``` - [ ] **Step 2.3: Amend the "No private agents" cross-reference bullet** Current (lines 213-219): ```markdown - **No private agents.** This skill is dialogue-driven. The Boss MAY ad-hoc dispatch `skills/planner/agents/ailang-plan-recon.md` during Step 1 when the milestone enters code territory the Boss has not recently read; this is opt-in and not part of the standard process. Rationale: brainstorm's recon phase is interwoven with the user Q&A — see `docs/specs/0009-plan-recon-subagent.md` for the full reasoning. ``` Replace with: ```markdown - **Private agent:** `skills/brainstorm/agents/ailang-grounding-check.md` — dispatched in Step 7.5 as a hard-gate. The agent reads the spec with fresh context and reports PASS / BLOCK / INFRA_ERROR. See `docs/specs/0013-brainstorm-grounding-check.md` for the design rationale. - **Ad-hoc dispatch.** The Boss MAY also ad-hoc dispatch `skills/planner/agents/ailang-plan-recon.md` during Step 1 when the milestone enters code territory the Boss has not recently read; this is opt-in and not part of the standard process. Rationale: brainstorm's recon phase is interwoven with the user Q&A — see `docs/specs/0009-plan-recon-subagent.md` for the full reasoning. ``` - [ ] **Step 2.4: Verify edits** Run: `grep -c "^### Step " skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md` Expected: `9` — eight original steps (1-8) plus the new 7.5, for nine `### Step ` headings total. (Step 9 stays as Step 9 — only 7.5 is inserted.) Run: `grep -n "ailang-grounding-check" skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md | wc -l` Expected: `≥3` — at least three references (Step 7.5 dispatch, Handoff Contract row, Private-agent cross-reference). - [ ] **Step 2.5: Commit** ```bash git add skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md git commit -m "iter gc.1: brainstorm SKILL — insert Step 7.5 (grounding-check hard-gate)" ``` --- ## Task 3: Update `skills/README.md` **Files:** - Modify: `skills/README.md:64-149` Two edits: agent-roster row and symlink discovery entry. Same file, related concern, single commit. - [ ] **Step 3.1: Insert agent-roster row** The agent-roster table (lines 64-76) currently starts with header at lines 64-65 and the first row (`ailang-plan-recon`) at line 66. Insert a new row at line 66, BEFORE the current `ailang-plan-recon` row, to preserve pipeline order (brainstorm precedes planner). New row: ```markdown | `ailang-grounding-check` | `brainstorm/agents/` | `brainstorm` (Step 7.5; spec grounding hard-gate) | ``` - [ ] **Step 3.2: Insert symlink discovery entry** The discovery block (lines 142-149) currently lists six symlinks starting with `planner` at line 143. Insert a new entry at line 143, BEFORE the current `planner` entry, to preserve pipeline order. New line: ``` .claude/agents/brainstorm -> skills/brainstorm/agents ``` (Note: two spaces before `->` to match the visual alignment of the existing entries.) - [ ] **Step 3.3: Verify edits** Run: `grep -c "ailang-" skills/README.md` Expected: increases by 1 from the current count (the new `ailang-grounding-check` row). Run: `grep "\.claude/agents/brainstorm" skills/README.md` Expected: one match showing the new symlink entry. - [ ] **Step 3.4: Commit** ```bash git add skills/README.md git commit -m "iter gc.1: skills README — roster + symlink for ailang-grounding-check" ``` --- ## Task 4: Symlink `.claude/agents/brainstorm` **Files:** - Create: `.claude/agents/brainstorm` (symlink) Order dependency: Task 1 must have run first, because the target directory `skills/brainstorm/agents/` is created implicitly by the `Write` of the agent file. If Task 1 has not run, the symlink will be dangling. - [ ] **Step 4.1: Verify target directory exists** Run: `ls -d skills/brainstorm/agents/` Expected: prints `skills/brainstorm/agents/` (directory exists from Task 1's Write). - [ ] **Step 4.2: Create the symlink** Run: `ln -s ../../skills/brainstorm/agents .claude/agents/brainstorm` Expected: no output on success. - [ ] **Step 4.3: Verify the symlink resolves** Run: `ls -la .claude/agents/brainstorm` Expected: shows `brainstorm -> ../../skills/brainstorm/agents`. Run: `readlink -f .claude/agents/brainstorm` Expected: resolves to the absolute path `/home/brummel/dev/ailang/skills/brainstorm/agents`. - [ ] **Step 4.4: Commit** ```bash git add .claude/agents/brainstorm git commit -m "iter gc.1: symlink .claude/agents/brainstorm -> skills/brainstorm/agents" ``` --- ## Task 5: Retire Spec-23 + roadmap forward-pointer **Files:** - Delete: `docs/specs/2026-05-10-23-eq-ord-prelude.md` - Modify: `docs/roadmap.md:44-52` This task closes the loop opened on 2026-05-11: the in-flight Spec-23 is removed, and the existing P1 Post-22 Prelude roadmap entry is amended to record the retirement and name the new dependency. - [ ] **Step 5.1: Delete Spec-23** Run: `git rm docs/specs/2026-05-10-23-eq-ord-prelude.md` Expected output: `rm 'docs/specs/2026-05-10-23-eq-ord-prelude.md'`. - [ ] **Step 5.2: Amend the P1 Post-22 Prelude entry in roadmap** Current (lines 44-52): ```markdown - [ ] **\[milestone\]** Post-22 Prelude — ship `Show` / `Eq` / `Ord` with the three total-orderable primitive instances (Int, Bool, Str); rewire `print` through `Show.show`. Float gets `Show` but **not** `Eq` / `Ord` (partial — see Floats milestone). Originally queued as 22b.4 in the typeclass milestone, kept on hold pending demand. - context: JOURNAL 2026-05-09 ("JOURNAL queue"). Floats milestone closed 2026-05-10 — partial-Eq/Ord-for-Float story is documented in DESIGN.md §"Float semantics", so the Prelude can decide what's instanced (Show: yes, Eq/Ord: no for Float). ``` Replace with: ```markdown - [ ] **\[milestone\]** Post-22 Prelude — ship `Show` / `Eq` / `Ord` with the three total-orderable primitive instances (Int, Bool, Str); rewire `print` through `Show.show`. Float gets `Show` but **not** `Eq` / `Ord` (partial — see Floats milestone). Originally queued as 22b.4 in the typeclass milestone, kept on hold pending demand. - context: JOURNAL 2026-05-09 ("JOURNAL queue"). Floats milestone closed 2026-05-10 — partial-Eq/Ord-for-Float story is documented in DESIGN.md §"Float semantics", so the Prelude can decide what's instanced (Show: yes, Eq/Ord: no for Float). - context: Iter 23.1-23.3 shipped Ordering ADT, Eq / Ord classes, primitive instances on Int / Bool / Str, and runtime helpers (`ail_str_eq` / `compare`). Remaining: polymorphic free fns (`ne` / `lt` / `le` / `gt` / `ge`), `Show` class, `print` rewire. The original Spec-23 draft was retired 2026-05-11 because it silently assumed polymorphic free fns are mono-specialised the same way as class methods; that assumption is false today. Re-brainstorm pending — `ailang-grounding-check` (gc.1) will be the gating mechanism on the new draft. - depends on: polymorphic-free-fn mono-specialisation (symmetric to class-method monomorphisation in 22b.3) — not currently ratified by any green test. ``` - [ ] **Step 5.3: Verify roadmap edit** Run: `grep -n "polymorphic-free-fn mono-specialisation" docs/roadmap.md` Expected: one match in the P1 section. Run: `grep -n "retired 2026-05-11" docs/roadmap.md` Expected: one match in the P1 section. - [ ] **Step 5.4: Confirm Spec-23 is gone** Run: `ls docs/specs/2026-05-10-23-eq-ord-prelude.md 2>&1` Expected: `ls: cannot access ...: No such file or directory`. - [ ] **Step 5.5: Commit** ```bash git add docs/roadmap.md docs/specs/2026-05-10-23-eq-ord-prelude.md git commit -m "iter gc.1: retire Spec-23, roadmap forward-pointer to re-brainstorm" ``` --- ## Final regression smoke After all five tasks have committed: - [ ] **Step F.1: Workspace regression smoke** Run: `cargo test --workspace --no-run 2>&1 | tail -5` Expected: clean compile, no test failures during build. (No Rust code touched, but this confirms no accidental cross-contamination.) - [ ] **Step F.2: Brainstorm-skill structural sanity** Run: `grep -E "^### Step " skills/brainstorm/SKILL.md | awk '{print $2, $3}'` Expected output (one per line): ``` ### Step ### Step ### Step ### Step ### Step ### Step ### Step ### Step ### Step ``` (Nine step headings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7.5, 8, 9. wc -l = 9.) - [ ] **Step F.3: Agent-roster table size** Run: `awk '/^\| Agent \|/,/^$/' skills/README.md | wc -l` Expected: `≥14` — header + separator + 12 rows (was 11; added 1). If any of F.1–F.3 fails, do NOT proceed to journal-write. Re-open the failing task, fix, re-commit, then re-run the smoke.