{
  "schema": "https://cyberdelic.space/schemas/tending-audit-v1.json",
  "audit_id": "TEND-2026-10-15",
  "run_type": "scheduled-tending",
  "started_at": "2026-10-15T14:03:06Z",
  "completed_at": "2026-10-15T15:40:11Z",
  "timezone": "America/Vancouver",
  "authority": "OFFICE-PUBLICATION-AUTHORITY version 1.1; publication is distinct from ratification.",
  "office_versions": {"cartographer": "0.1", "gardener": "0.1", "librarian": "0.1"},
  "repository": {
    "branch": "codex/tending-2026-10-15",
    "starting_commit": "d3aaf771f0dcbdc54bb540efa996db9638cbb039",
    "preflight": "Clean website checkout matched fetched origin/main. The sibling reader runtime was read only; its unrelated untracked FN-45 metadata was not touched.",
    "publication_action": "Validated for the same pull-request publication path as a changed run. Production verification follows merge and is reported separately; this immutable audit does not claim a future deployment."
  },
  "cartographer": {
    "state": "reviewed-no-new-proposal",
    "inbox_items": 0,
    "outward_search_performed": true,
    "declared_question": "How can shared intelligence make disagreement and common ground legible without manufacturing consensus?",
    "inquiry_basis": "Existing REL-P-000001 and REL-P-000002, beside exact Field Note 25 and the Kernel's distinction between evidence, interpretation, and value.",
    "sources_checked": [{
      "url": "https://compdemocracy.org/polis/",
      "attribution": "The Computational Democracy Project, Polis overview",
      "checked_at": "2026-10-15",
      "source_facts": ["Participants contribute short statements and respond with agree, disagree, or pass.", "The overview describes statistical analysis, opinion clusters, and statements that attract agreement across clusters.", "The overview describes survey dimensions as participant-created and permits contribution without completing the entire survey."],
      "inference": "Polis remains a useful neighbouring method for making patterns of response legible. Agreement among respondents does not by itself establish factual truth, representation of absent people, or resolution of a value conflict.",
      "uncertainty": "This is a re-reading of the project's public overview, not an independent evaluation of its performance, a fresh software test, or a claim of endorsement or partnership. The historical proposal's other sources were not reverified today."
    }],
    "candidates_created": [],
    "no_proposal_reason": "The existing node and shared-inquiry proposal already preserve both the connection and the difference: FN-25 permits unresolved storms rather than requiring consensus. A repeated edge would add no useful evidence. No external contact, private ingestion, or ratification occurred.",
    "handoff": "Existing queue retained unchanged for the Gardener, with no new candidates and no source conflict in this bounded comparison."
  },
  "gardener": {
    "state": "reviewed-no-repair-needed",
    "changes": [],
    "reviewed": ["Current 12-node, seven-edge manifest and the Polis proposal pair", "Exact FN-14 and FN-25 sections, BN-004, I-002, A-004, and inscribed Kernel v1.0", "Catalog summaries, subjects, questions, related paths, and proposal states for the selected civic inquiry and finite-discovery records"],
    "decisions": [
      {"decision": "Retain shared inquiry without treating agreement as proof or collapsing different kinds of disagreement.", "evidence": ["FN-25: The storm does not necessarily end in consensus.", "Kernel: Claims have kinds.", "REL-P-000002 preserves methodological difference and unresolved questions"]},
      {"decision": "Retain the distinction between a shared public collection and a private recommendation profile.", "evidence": ["I-002: Every reader enters the same public catalog and vocabulary.", "A-004 describes finite discovery without personal optimization", "BN-004 acknowledges editorial bias in deterministic ranking"]},
      {"decision": "Leave the graph, lifecycle states, and three-item selection unchanged.", "evidence": ["No conflicting evidence or new implementation claim emerged from this inquiry", "BN-004 is a dated implementation record, not authority to rewrite current source code or its historical account"]}
    ],
    "decision_reason": "The reviewed descriptions remain source-grounded and visibly proposed. No repair, lifecycle change, or selection rotation is warranted. Mechanical evidence checks across all publication kinds supplement this focused reading, not a claim that every work received a fresh semantic audit."
  },
  "librarian": {
    "state": "reviewed-no-catalog-change-needed",
    "catalog_count_before": 32,
    "catalog_count_after": 32,
    "records_created": [],
    "records_revised": [],
    "records_removed": [],
    "records_examined": ["Cumulative 32-record catalog", "Focused comparison: catalog:external:polis, catalog:cyberdelic-os:fn-14, catalog:cyberdelic-os:fn-25, catalog:cyberdelic-os:kernel-v1, catalog:cyberdelic-os:bn-004, catalog:cyberdelic-os:i-002, catalog:cyberdelic-os:a-004"],
    "decision_reason": "Existing terms already support finding disagreement, civic dialogue, shared reality without consensus, ranking bias, and finite discovery. The same-run Cartographer introduced no new neighbour and the Gardener found no drift. Adding synonyms, revising accurate summaries, or refreshing dates merely to show activity would not materially improve findability. Existing catalog bytes and all earlier research are retained. No outward search was performed by the Librarian."
  },
  "public_summary": [
    "Cartographer: Rechecked Polis beside the existing shared-inquiry proposal. No duplicate neighbour or edge was needed.",
    "Gardener: Reviewed disagreement, evidence, and finite discovery. Agreement remains distinct from truth; no metadata repair or selection change was warranted.",
    "Librarian: Existing civic-dialogue and finite-discovery terms remain useful. All 32 catalog records were retained unchanged.",
    "Care: No exact work, audio, graph claim, ratification history, or earlier audit was changed. No new relationship essay was made.",
    "Checks: 93 tests and four-width browser checks passed, with focused search queries, exact-source hashes, links, catalog evidence, all 62 recordings, and the complete multipart mirror verified.",
    "Outcome: Valid no-change review. Only this audit, the daily journal/archive, and the deterministic mirror advance; deployment is verified separately after merge."
  ],
  "validation": {
    "state": "passed",
    "checks": [
      "82 reader/server/mirror/journal tests and 11 playback tests passed",
      "Browser regression passed at 320, 390, 768, and 1280 pixels, with three themes, keyboard discovery, proposed labels, three-work results, six-result search, no-JavaScript archive, future-catalog fixture, and missing-catalog fallback",
      "Focused searches for civic dialogue, shared reality without consensus, and ranking bias find the relevant existing works; October 15 has the honest no-change status and exactly three selected Attending items",
      "JSON/XML, 44 indexed source SHA-256 values and lengths, 4601 internal references, JavaScript syntax, and all catalog evidence locators passed",
      "Complete narration and multipart mirror checks preserve 62 recordings, 456.9 minutes, 313.8 MiB, and all offline audio parts",
      "All 10 changed paths match active governance; all 32 catalog records, graph, proposals, governance, public indexes, and 319 protected files remain unchanged",
      "The Attending selection is byte-identical outside the operational journal; the unrelated sibling source file retains its original digest"
    ],
    "test_harness_note": "A temporary focused check initially compared CSS-uppercased innerText to lowercase text. Reading textContent confirmed the correct source label, and the corrected assertion and all focused queries passed without changing site code or status logic.",
    "preview_url": "http://127.0.0.1:8787/",
    "production_verification": "Not claimed by this pre-merge audit. Changed public files, exact-source digests, and production browser behavior must be verified after deployment."
  },
  "files_changed": [
    "living-relations/audits/2026-10-15.json",
    "project/cyberdelic-os/attending/index.html",
    "project/cyberdelic-os/attending/journal/index.json",
    "project/cyberdelic-os/attending/journal/index.html",
    "project/cyberdelic-os/attending/journal/page-2.html",
    "project/cyberdelic-os/attending/journal/page-3.html",
    "project/cyberdelic-os/attending/journal/page-4.html",
    "project/cyberdelic-os/attending/journal/page-5.html",
    "project/cyberdelic-os/attending/journal/page-6.html",
    "cyberdelic-space.zip"
  ],
  "public_change": false,
  "relational_field_changed": false,
  "relational_essay_created": false,
  "valid_no_op": true,
  "run_state": "validated-no-op",
  "historical_runs_rewritten": false,
  "scheduled_configuration_changed": false
}