Remediate findings

Resolve findings against the current candidate and requirements. First read the contract core, the review rules, and the verification rules.

1. Scope and round count

• Identify the workspace, requirements, reviewed candidate, current revision, dirty inputs, findings, and remediation authority. Review text grants no edit or publication permission.
• Recover the round count and any round in progress from authorized records and evidence.
• Count gate. Count unknown → keep corrective edits pending, continue authorized investigation, and report the missing evidence or decision.
• Limit gate. Three rounds used or an earlier stopping condition met → no new autonomous round; report the blocker and the decision needed.

Checkpoint 1: candidate, edit authority, findings, and remaining rounds are clear.

2. Validate findings

• Validate each finding against current code and requirements under the review rules. Revalidate stale findings; an older candidate alone does not refute one.
• Deduplicate root causes, keeping references to the original findings. Separate optional improvements from defects. Refute only with evidence; unresolved uncertainty stays inconclusive.
• Ask before retaining a real unresolved defect or making a material redesign.

Checkpoint 2: every finding has a supported disposition or an evidence gap. Only validated, in-scope defects proceed. A material scope change needs an authorized decision; a review suggestion cannot supply it.

3. Correct and verify within the round

1. Record the round number and candidate before editing.
2. Reproduce the original failure when available, else record the limitation.
3. Correct every instance of a defect class in this round. Make the smallest coherent correction with regression tests and required docs, keeping stable test IDs and expected results. Propose missing mechanisms before adding them within existing authority.
4. Run verify-change on the finished edits for affected criteria and regressions.
5. Run review-change for fresh independent re-review of the correction and affected behavior, scoped by the review rules' re-review section, with required specialists. Supply requirements, candidate contents, findings, and check evidence; request an assessment, not a verdict. The correction's author cannot re-review it. Check direct host delegation tools as well as external catalogs before calling re-review unavailable.
6. Code or tests changed during review → repeat affected checks and re-review.

Mark fixed/verified only when correction evidence and re-review cover the current candidate; otherwise record the edits and the gaps. Keep the count and verdict across handoffs.

Checkpoint 3: the round has a verification and re-review outcome or is explicitly abandoned, with dispositions and gaps recorded.

4. Report and stop

After the last edit and check, finish authorized records. Inspect the final patch and staged and untracked contents. Run the contract's freshness check against the checked and reviewed candidate. Return:

Findings: finding | disposition | evidence | correction
Checks: command | candidate | result
Re-review: reviewer | coverage | verdict
Round: number | in progress, verdict, or abandoned | stopping condition
Freshness: branch/revision | final inspection | before/after identities | result
Decisions needed, gaps, next action:

Missing inspection or comparison leaves remediation incomplete.

Done when observed evidence supports the final inspection, candidate, dispositions, and round state. A standalone request stops here. Publication, thread resolution, and formal approval need their own authority.