The reviewer confirmed the T1-T4 ordering holds -- it re-derived every
intermediate state and checked that no construction path can produce
est_tokens=0 with tpm>0 before T4 -- but found four gaps.
Two existing tests go red and the plan never said so: test_types.py:94
asserts the very constraint T4 deletes, and test_embedding.py:105 is a
transport-level case for the fallback T3 rewrites, easy to miss while
looking only at test_openai_compat.py.
The T4 acceptance line claimed all three settlement sides use the
derived value, but the cancel branch never assigns actual and leaves it
at the retry.py:329 initial zero -- an implementer would have "fixed"
a branch the design freezes. Corrected here and in the design section
5 sentence it came from.
USAGE_SOURCES would have landed with no consumer, so T1 now carries the
two value-domain assertions the design asks for, including the one that
pins the no-runtime-validation ruling.
The ordering is the load-bearing part. All three changes interlock and
every wrong interleaving fails silently: flipping the usage fallback to
(0, 0) before the settlement points read the derived value refunds the
whole pre-deduction on success, and flipping the embedding transport
before _merge goes three-state mislabels unavailable batches as
measured. So the plan adds the capability first, moves all five call
sites onto it while it is still equivalent, only then lets the third
state take effect, and unbinds the constraint last.
Registers both wiki entries and links the plan to its design.
Also note that the seven architecture amendments predate the plan,
tighten T12 to independent implementation layers, and add fallback
guidance for read-only reference protocol imports.
iomgaa