docs: spec-review wrap-up routing — inbox-route supersedes direct-move

Reviewed the approved wrap-up routing spec; rubric Not ready, two blocking findings. The central one: route keepers via the existing inbox-send path to the destination's inbox and let its own process-inbox file them, rather than the spec's new atomic cross-repo todo.org move. inbox-send already provides the provenance the direct-move design reinvents, the destination files through its own value gate, and a verified precondition (chime and yt-sync have inbox/ but no todo.org) reverses the spec's assumption. Second finding pins the candidate-set marking to a tag stamped at process-inbox file time. Review file carries the analysis and drop-in implementation tasks.

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org b/docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org
index 5749491..08cdf1f 100644
--- a/docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org
+++ b/docs/design/wrapup-routing-spec.org
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 #+end_src
 
 * Metadata
-| Status   | ready for review                                    |
+| Status   | reviewed 2026-06-21 — Not ready (H1/H2 blocking; see -review.org) |
 |----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
 | Owner    | Craig Jennings                                      |
 |----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
@@ -183,3 +183,8 @@ Only after the transcript-scope decision resolves. File a recording into the des
 - What: resolved all three open decisions. The router's input is Reading B (filed keepers that belong elsewhere, not raw inbox files), so D1 keeps it a separate sub-step from the inbox gate and D5 keeps it distinct from the defer-and-stage router; D4 defers transcript routing to vNext. Reworked the design (input definition, a candidate-set note bounding the router to session-filed keepers) and Phase 3 to match. Cookie now [6/6]; Status moved to ready-for-review.
 - Why: Craig chose Reading B after the A-vs-B input ambiguity surfaced as the root under D1 and D5. Reading B keeps the inbox gate, the router, and defer-and-stage each simple instead of entangling three mechanisms.
 - Artifacts: this spec; the candidate-set marking mechanism is the one detail flagged for spec-review to pin.
+
+** 2026-06-21 Sun @ 01:58:41 -0400 — Claude Code (rulesets) — reviewer
+- What: spec-review pass. Rubric *Not ready*, two blocking findings. H1: the inbox-route alternative (inbox-send each routable keeper to the destination's inbox/, let its own process-inbox file it) supersedes the direct-move design — reshape D2, drop Phase 2 and D3's provenance burden. H2: pin the candidate-set marking to Option A (tag =:ROUTE_CANDIDATE:= at process-inbox file time). Four medium findings (M1 confidence tiers, M2 empty-set silence, M3 paired process-inbox edit phase, M4 cross-project.md note). Full review + drop-in implementation tasks in the review file.
+- Why: Craig challenged D2 directly (why edit a foreign todo.org rather than use the sanctioned inbox-send path). The review confirmed it: inbox-send already emits the exact provenance D3 reinvents, process-inbox already files per-item with the destination's own gate, cross-project.md sanctions the inbox path, and a verified precondition reverses the spec's assumption — chime and yt-sync have inbox/ but no todo.org, so direct-move silently drops keepers headed there while inbox-route degrades gracefully.
+- Artifacts: [[file:wrapup-routing-spec-review.org][review file]]. Next: spec-response to disposition H1/H2 (recommend accept both), which moves the rubric to Ready.