# Plan Review Panel — insuniverse-docs-30-contracts-limits

**Plan**: `.claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-30-contracts-limits-m1.plan.md` · **Plan version**: `sha256:010b864db17bc5dc8e9655fc43942ad185b51c3b56a631a908b2b7bd89588f6e`
**Verdict**: `divergent` via `multi-agent`
**Quorum**: 4/3 responses · 4 distinct roles (of 4 fielded) · passed=false
**Layers**: L1 converged · L2 divergent · L3 not fired

> Reason: L2 quorum not satisfied: 6 blocking finding(s): invariant/CRITICAL, invariant/CRITICAL, invariant/CRITICAL, invariant/HIGH — MCCP_REVIEW_SINGLE_PASS=deadline_pressure 로 진행한다. verdict는 divergent 그대로 봉인된다.

## Findings

| Perspective | Severity | Claim | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| invariant | CRITICAL | Gate #1e is fail-open: it validates only format of D6 approval field, not truthfulness or actual user authorization | .claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-30-contracts-limits-m1.plan.md line 223-226: '`#1e` 는 D6 행의 `승인` 열이 `사용자 plan 승인 YYYY-MM-DD` 형식으로 채워졌는지만 본다... 그 날짜가 사용자가 실제로 준 것인지는 이 검사도, 저장소의 어떤 게이트도 판정하지 못한다'; line 242 validation regex: `$6 ~ /^사용자 plan 승인 [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9]$/` checks format only; line 38-40: '승인 발화 없이 날짜를 채우면 검사는 통과하고 장부에는 거짓 승인이 남는다' (false approval is silent, gate passes without actual approval) |
| invariant | CRITICAL | Blocking precondition (D6 approval) cannot be enforced by Task 2's validation gate. Plan claims 'D6 은 이 계획서가 GROUND 에서 새로 찾아낸 것이며 승인되지 않았다' but gate accepts any conforming date string without verification that user actually approved it | .claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-30-contracts-limits-m1.plan.md line 22-28: D6 'not approved' (승인되지 않았다) vs line 129: Task 2 Action expects executor to 'transcribe from user approval utterance' (사용자의 승인 발화에서 옮겨 적는다) but no gate validates this actually occurred; Acceptance line 400: '그 날짜가 사용자가 실제로 준 것이다 — `(미검증)` · 평문 필드라 어떤 게이트도 진위를 판정하지 못한다' (unverified) |
| invariant | CRITICAL | Receipt anchoring failure: plan claims approval is not yet received (line 24: 'D6 은...승인되지 않았다'), yet the plan's own execution path in Task 2 will accept any conforming date without binding that date to proof of actual approval in this session | .claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-30-contracts-limits-m1.plan.md line 30-32: 'D6 없이 마일스톤 1 은 닫히지 않는다 — golden 재동결 없이는 종료조건 성립하지 않는다'; line 384 (Risks section): '**위임 `승인` 열의 진위를 기계가 못 본다** \| 높음 \| 중 \| 없다 — 관측 불가' explicitly documents this cannot be verified, yet acceptance proceeds if format is correct |
| invariant | HIGH | User Intent UI2 vs Gate Behavior mismatch: UI2 (line 47) explicitly rejects gate escalation ('위임 규약을 게이트로 승격하지 않는다'), yet Task 2 Action requires a human judgment gate (D6 approval) that cannot be mechanically verified, creating a silent degrade scenario | .claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-30-contracts-limits-m1.plan.md line 47: 'UI2 \| 위임 규약을 게이트로 승격하지 않는다 — 2026-08-24 재검토 판정이 유지다 \| exclusion'; line 127-129: Task 2 Action explicitly requires verifying 'D6 을 승인했는가... 여기서 멈춘다' but only gate #1e checks format, not approval existence; PRD line 36: `run_ownership_gate` does not read §개정 위임 (cannot verify) |
| invariant | HIGH | No unknown-input path prevents false approval injection. Task 2 validation regex accepts any date YYYY-MM-DD (including future dates, meaningless dates) without semantic validation or tie to actual user utterance in this session | .claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-30-contracts-limits-m1.plan.md line 242: validation accepts any `[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}` pattern; executor could write `사용자 plan 승인 9999-12-31` and gate passes; no validation that date is in past/present, or that any user utterance exists to match it |

## Refutation attempted

| Perspective | Verdict | What was attacked |
|---|---|---|
| architect | pass | Verified all structural claims: (1) tree structure and golden.txt values match actual files; (2) D6 delegation is necessary per archived-ownership + constraint-6 exception mechanism; (3) Task ordering avoids circular deps; (4) Validation checks correspond to task modifications; (5) Abstraction of D6 approval explicitly acknowledges layer-8 blind spot (format-only verification). Attacked layer leaks, boundary violations, hidden circular deps, abstraction claims made to unsuspecting callers, scope creep in NOT Building, and line-number staleness. Found none. The one known limitation (approvaltruth is human responsibility) is documented and unavoidable given out-of-band approval mechanism. |
| security | pass | Traced delegation approval flow for D6 (golden.txt): The plan acknowledges the approval forgery vulnerability (layers 8, documented at lines 35-40, 224-226, 384) where the validation gate #1e only checks format, not authenticity. This is an accepted design choice given the threat model (authorized developers only, git audit trail). No new vulnerabilities introduced in file modifications (D1-D4 modify documentation, D6 updates hashes). Checked golden.txt tamper surface: test #6 validates only 6 specific keys move. Verified task ordering: D5 delegation precedes all file edits. No secrets/credentials leakage, no path traversal, no unhandled partial-state conditions. All documented risks are properly mitigated or explicitly accepted within stated threat model. |
| test | pass | Attempted refutation across six vectors: 1. **Path realism**: Verified all referenced files exist (docs/00-index.md, .claude/meta/05-final-spec.md, docs/_meta/onboarding-questions.yaml, docs/_meta/verify/golden.txt, verify.sh). Section headers the tests expect ("## 문서 트리", "## 4. 확정 docs 구조") exist at correct line positions (70, 325). Test file paths in validation block match reality. 2. **Test coverage of load-bearing claims**:     - Delegation rows (D1-D5-D6): Tests #1a-#1e verify counts, status keywords, uniqueness, path leakage, approval format — no gaps found    - Tree byte-identity (D1/D2 pairing): Test #3a checks diff=0, #3b checks new line presence, #3c checks old patterns gone — approach sound despite not verifying exact indentation (mitigated by Mirror references)    - Old literal removal: Test #5 counts 6 patterns across 3 files; verified all 10 target locations (G14) are covered by at least one pattern; negative probe (Task 1) checks baseline found 11 matches before edits    - Golden key movements: Test #6a/6b handle missing baseline snapshot gracefully with diagnostic messages, not silent failure    - RC immutability (D5 edit): Test #9 compares two timestamped files to detect unintended rc changes    - Acceptance criteria marked (미검증) at lines 398-400 (496-497 preservation, 492-502 correctness) are not tested and are correctly labeled as manual verification 3. **Validation script defensiveness**: Checked that tests don't exit on first failure but continue to gather all results (line 368 final count). Baseline absence is handled: #6a/6b show diagnostic strings instead of silent 0; #6c prints to stderr if NEG file missing (line 325). 4. **Negative probe setup**: Task 1 is supposed to record baseline failures (5 FAIL tokens: #1a, #2b, #3b, #3c, #5a) in m1-negative.err before edits; test #6c verifies this file exists and contains exactly 5 matching lines. This validates the test infrastructure is working before task execution proceeds. 5. **Pattern matching coverage**: Verified grep patterns for test #5 with actual file content:    - 'env 게이트 11종' — found in 00-index.md:98, 05-final-spec.md:355, 502    - '정책 게이트 11종' — found in 05-final-spec.md:492, 502      - '30-contracts-limits.prd.md §MVP — 산출 문서 8종' — found in onboarding-questions.yaml:193, 208    - '산출 8종' — found in onboarding-questions.yaml:185    - '해당 11종' — found in 05-final-spec.md:504    - '이 11종' — found in 05-final-spec.md:505    All patterns confirmed present in source before edits; no untested locations identified. 6. **Acceptance-to-gate mapping**: Traced all Acceptance criteria (lines 387-404) to corresponding gate numbers (#1-#10) and verified gate code exists and performs claimed checks. Gates #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 all have matching test code. No gate is referenced without implementation. No untested load-bearing claims found. All unverifiable items are explicitly marked (미검증). Validation strategy acknowledges manual elements (D6 date verification, preservation of specific lines, exact prose meaning) and correctly excludes them from automated gates. |
| invariant | fail | Attacked the D6 blocking precondition and its gate enforcement via four angles: (1) examined gate #1e's actual validation logic (line 242) and found it checks format regex only, not approval truthfulness; (2) traced unknown-input paths - an executor can fill any conforming date without user approval and gate silently passes (line 38-40); (3) checked for rollback/remediation - line 384 Risks section explicitly says this cannot be mitigated ('완화하지 않는다'); (4) examined receipt anchoring - plan claims approval "not received" but gate will accept unsigned dates, breaking the binding between verdict and reviewed artifact. No attack produced evidence of enforcement. All paths lead to fail-open drift: gate structure claims to block until D6 approval, but validation mechanism cannot distinguish between false and true approval entries. |

## Measurement

<!-- Written by plan-review/cli.js record on EVERY exit path, pass or halt.
     Machine-readable; do not hand-edit. A null field means the axis was
     not observed, never that it was zero. -->

```json
{
  "verdict": "divergent",
  "source": "multi-agent",
  "layers": {
    "l1": "converged",
    "l2": "divergent",
    "l3": "not fired"
  },
  "quorum": {
    "responded": 4,
    "required": 3,
    "roles": 4,
    "of": 4,
    "passed": false
  },
  "wall_clock_ms": 2992815,
  "halt_stage": null,
  "backlog_appended": 6,
  "backlog_skipped_nonblocking": 0,
  "granted": 4,
  "reviewed_plan_hash": "sha256:010b864db17bc5dc8e9655fc43942ad185b51c3b56a631a908b2b7bd89588f6e",
  "plan_path": ".claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-30-contracts-limits-m1.plan.md",
  "recorded_at": "2026-08-24T03:59:16.880Z"
}
```