Skip to content

finding(skills/pm-dispatch): the director charter's step order reads as 「screen the whole inbox before the first batch」 — summon #25 presented batch #192 only after reading all 51 cards; and ruled cards re-enter the decision box without citing the ruling on their own thread #19340

Description

@os-project-manager

Path: none | charter (.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/SKILL.md filing rules · references/lanes/director.md :40 · references/state-machine.md intake · .claude/agents/os-dev.md report contract · the write-identity lock roster) | RULED — maintainer 「1 2 3 4 5 6 8」 (5750077963) | graded by domain:skills#2

Filed by the director seat, summon #25 (session_012GcsUbuqFGBibkEDMRC1eE), as the summon's 换班报告 finding — class 原则错/缺 (item 1) and 可机械化项 (item 2). ⛔ Filed unassigned; the skills lane triages it. ⛔ No domain:* / priority:* / type applied.

1. Charter sequencing — the first batch came 51 cards late, and the charter's wording is why

The director charter (.claude/skills/pm-dispatch/references/lanes/director.md, the decision-box duty) orders the seat's work as 「第一步:逐卡过一类自裁三判据」 before the batches. Read literally, that is 「screen every card in the inbox for class-1 self-adjudication, then start presenting」. Summon #25 read it that way: it screened all 51 cards, then presented batch #192. The maintainer's reaction, verbatim (chat, this summon):

「你不是应该5张一批给我决裁吗,你在忙什么?是不是技能有问题。」
「你为什么要读完全部决裁卡才开始呈交第一批 有什么好处」

The seat's honest answer: the benefit was small. Of the 51 rulings this summon executed (batches #192#199 plus 19 class-1 self-adjudications), ⛔ none depended on having read the other cards first; the ordering rule (在飞被阻塞 > 运营阻塞 > 用户可见 > 结构性) is decidable from labels, assignee, PR references and the 维护者速读, ⛔ not from a full thread read. What the full pre-read bought was a later first batch — and a maintainer waiting on a seat that was reading.

Proposed wording (one rule, replacing the step order):

  • The first batch is presented after the first ≤5 same-family cards are read; class-1 screening runs per batch (on the five cards in hand), ⛔ not inbox-wide before the first batch.
  • Inbox ordering uses a cheap scan (labels, assignee, open-PR references, the 速读's first lines) to pick the next five; the full thread read happens on those five only.
  • A card found to be class-1 during a batch read is self-adjudicated in that batch's stroke and replaced in the batch by the next candidate, so a batch still presents five decisions.
  • Verifiable criterion: time from the summon's opening marker to the first batch's presentation ≤ the time to read five cards.

2. Ruled cards re-enter the decision box without citing the ruling on their own thread

Measured this summon — cards whose thread already carried a maintainer ruling (Ruling: first-line comment, or a 「⚖️ RULED」 record) and that were nevertheless placed back in needs-user-decision with a fresh 速读 that did not name the earlier ruling or say what changed since:

card earlier ruling on the thread what the re-entry lacked
objectstack#17518 a batch ruling (letter A) the 速读 re-asked the ruled question; the summon ruled A′ citing the record
objectstack#13503 a standing ruling on the reaper's input shape re-entered as if unruled; class-1 re-affirmed
objectui#6033 standing ruling 5406213903 re-entered without citing it; class-1 「the standing ruling stands」
objectui#6900 ruled twice (5472485052, 5486949502) the third entry (5737290535) did cite them — the good example; the two-week gap before it was a label never moved
objectui#6379 triage grading on the human floor (5453884177) a hold audit released it to pm:queue reading 「no pending ruling」 while the decision was pending; three seats passed it over

Each re-entry cost a full re-read by the director seat and, where the ruling stood, produced a ruling that says only 「the standing ruling stands」.

Proposed mechanism (可机械化): the decision-box intake check that already verifies the 速读 and four-facet block (triage's 「落卡入箱时校验/补全」 duty) also requires a Prior rulings on this card: line naming every Ruling: / 「RULED」 comment id on the same thread and one sentence on what changed since each; a card whose own thread carries such a comment and whose face lacks the line is refused entry (pm:retriage to the filer), ⛔ not presented. check-prior-rulings.mjs already reads the thread by first-line shape and can print the line.

Not proposed

  • ⛔ Not a change to the batch size (5), the six-item prose, or the 「呈完即停」 rule — those worked.
  • ⛔ Not a change to class-1 criteria — the 19 self-adjudications this summon are on the summon's summary table for 追认.

Dedupe words: director first batch after five cards · class-1 screening per batch · decision box re-entry cite prior ruling · Prior rulings on this card line · needs-user-decision intake refuses unruled re-entry


Generated by Claude Code

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions