[loopx-agent]

Goal And Delivered Outcome

The launch articles overemphasized recent fixes, leaving the early control-plane transaction and execution-authority work, and the benchmark-driven evolution of research decisions, hard to understand. This revision rebuilds the bilingual stories around the full historical progression and concrete failure cases.

• TypeScript: explain provider success before checkpoint, prepared-attempt recovery, atomic claim/lease/receipt handling, evidence-only changes that must not rearm settled work, and semantic producer/consumer evidence. Recent recovery work becomes a continuation of that history. Preserve the existing cohort, contributor attribution and timeline.
• EdgeBench: follow trustworthy feedback → original-goal acceptance → experiment stride → complete checkpoint and fresh decisions → late-run outcomes and complete costs. Bring earlier native results and counterexamples into the main narrative; retain comparison conditions and distinguish initial advantage from subsequent improvement. Existing anchors are retained.
• Content capability: extend the existing artifact-revision guidance with chronological selection, canonical-source reuse, whole-film information density, listening, actual-player compatibility and explicit untested judgments. This is guidance, not a new runtime owner, renderer, permission or approval flow.

Author Declaration

• Written by: model_agent — OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex.
• Specification and revision: the editorial request summarized in this PR is the selection basis; AGENTS.md, docs/development/design.md, and existing creation-outcome guidance at base fb331f45c355152a4c1658af1e097f60a5840154 supply the delivery frame.

Criterion	Disposition	Path	Evidence
Full historical selection and synchronized bilingual articles	implemented	Four public blog documents	Chronological PR references, paired-case readback, source/condition preservation
Whole-page readability and first-screen evidence	implemented	Existing public blog surfaces	Desktop/narrow before and after below; populated and expanded details reviewed
Improve the existing creation capability's video revision guidance	implemented	loopx/capabilities/content_ops/README.md, packages/loopx-media/README.md	Guidance reuses the current owner and separates technical, creative and audience evidence

The existing whole-film workflow also checks the player-selected audio mix, opening narration and inserted shots: separate narration tracks may be selected as alternatives rather than heard together. Per-passage audio presence complements, and does not replace, full listening. This is documentation for the existing creation workflow, not a new media-provider runtime guarantee.

Scope And Continuation

Complete within this public documentation scope. A public release and final film/audio qualification remain separate work; this PR neither publishes a film nor claims that its creative review is complete. No runtime implementation or benchmark semantics changed.

Validation

Original article validation head: 5c30b51dd6a81fe6ff1d11db009c9082299a6e65. Public site TypeScript/build, SEO smoke, bilingual PR references, HTML IDs/fragments and public-boundary checks passed. The TS recovery example now distinguishes a conclusive version rejection followed by a failed read from an uncertain commit response, with immutable implementation/regression links. Blank-note omission is distinguished from explicit list/boolean intent; the repeated planning-migration paragraph is consolidated. This is an explanation of historical behavior, not a new runtime repair. Historical test source was inspected; those backend suites were not rerun. PR base remains main; the original branch merge base was fb331f45c355152a4c1658af1e097f60a5840154. At that validation, fetched main was 0d4bf99a4aa6080f2774f3c4477fb4adc1b5ac46; no intervening changes touch these two EdgeBench articles or their visual-evidence directory.

• Public site TypeScript/build and SEO publication smoke passed.

• Four HTML documents: one H1, unique IDs, valid local fragment links, existing anchors preserved, matching bilingual PR references.

• Actual browser review at 1440×1000 and 390×844; populated article content and expanded details checked. No document-wide horizontal overflow; wide tables retain their scroll containers. New TS examples read as concrete questions followed by recovery/execution mechanisms; benchmark conditions remain adjacent to the outcomes.

• Diff whitespace and added-text public/private scans passed. Screenshots show only public static article content. Generic existing .local documentation examples are unchanged.

• No benchmark rerun, new causal attribution, deployed-site readback, media-provider runtime certification or audience-comprehension claim. The separate canonical-film refinement and launch review bundle remain local candidates and are not part of this public diff.

• Scope-fit: reuse the existing content-ops and media review boundary; no new editor or abstraction. No RFC pair changed. Runtime suites are outside this documentation-only diff. CI/review/merge readiness remain separate.

• Run state: finished. Input class: public_fixture.

Check kind	Result	Evidence / limitation
static	passed	Public site build, SEO smoke, fragment/ID checks and public-boundary scan
manual	passed	Public article first screens, populated sections and expanded details at desktop/narrow sizes
real_backend	not_applicable	Documentation only; no backend contract changed

Review media relocation

Current head: 1a35c22d8744809b144fae6cabc10f00ea7cc430; integration baseline: 3544a9519f35e780909edfb1abbd3f33f4c90851 on main. The final six-file diff contains no review PNGs. The four articles and two creation guides are byte-for-byte unchanged from 5c30b51dd6a81fe6ff1d11db009c9082299a6e65; no tracked source references the review-image path.

The same twelve images are preserved below as GitHub PR attachments: desktop 1440×1000, narrow 390×844. Capture revisions and original visual-review scope remain recorded beside them. This relocation changes evidence hosting, not article composition or the original review claims. The images were individually inspected for public-only content. On the repaired head, site TypeScript/build, SEO smoke including both publication bases, four-document ID/fragment and bilingual PR-reference checks, whitespace checks, and the six-file public-boundary scan passed. The repository premerge gate also passed 19/19 selected checks, including semantic-vocabulary drift and content-ops smokes. Backend and audience tests were not rerun.

Frontend / Visual Evidence

Before: source baseline e19d94ca04ead2bb919aaa438e61bf229a6cfad1. The original first-screen captures below show 0df9e7266e2c6789bb3f014a762bd8e24bd8418f; the TS first viewport was rechecked at 441083a3c507854ab6e68b40c7609ac5c1284591 and retains the same composition. The revised recovery passage is captured separately at 441083a3c507854ab6e68b40c7609ac5c1284591. These are static source previews, not evidence of installation or production deployment.

Surface	Before	After
TS desktop
TS narrow
EdgeBench desktop
EdgeBench narrow

Current TS recovery passage: ordinary body text explains two failure sequences, with the decisive distinction in bold and source links adjacent. Inspected at 1440×1000 and 390×844; the English passage and companion review article were also checked at 390px. Both languages wrap fully without document-wide horizontal overflow. This is a composition assessment, not independent audience-comprehension evidence.

Current passage	Desktop	Narrow
Preserve known rejection vs commit uncertainty

• UI impact: changed editorial presentation; source data: public_fixture.
• Attention/craft review: keep one article title and the established layout. Concrete failure cases and their consequences occupy the narrative; methods and later implementation detail remain expandable. Numeric conditions and negative results remain visible near their claims. No new cards, motion or status system.

The EdgeBench narrative also restores the October 7 settled-work-Turn review repair (#5879): why completed-Todo cadence can miss a long task, why unsettled or duplicate records must not advance the counter, and how evidence can support continuing the same open task. The merged historical regression was inspected, not rerun; no benchmark result or frozen cadence was rewritten. The first viewport retains its composition and was rechecked at 5c30b51dd6a81fe6ff1d11db009c9082299a6e65 in desktop/narrow views. The new passage and English narrow view were also inspected, with no document-wide overflow.

Earlier research mechanism	Desktop	Narrow
Review before a long task completes

Type of Change

• Documentation update

LoopX Area

• Public docs or presentation surface (README, protocols, dashboard)
• Capability or extension (guidance only)

Shared-authority RFC fixture impact

N/A: this explains historical work; it claims no new migration, promotion, routing or provider-conformance progress.

Boundary Checklist

• No private state, credentials, raw traces, internal links or local machine paths in the public diff, description or screenshots.
• No duplicate benchmark implementation or new experiment.
• Scoped to the editorial and creation-guidance request.
• No paired RFC changed.
• Visual evidence included above.
• Every commit has a DCO sign-off.

[LIHUA919]

Reviewer: model_agent · gpt-6.1-sol · OpenAI · runtime_reported · reasoning_effort=max

精确 head：185e513305285172d3e55dcc7cfbca690e1a2de7；不可变合入基点：ce4c78088ea464cb31231513882bed6bb6933156。结论：REQUEST_CHANGES，当前保留的是验证缺口，没有把下述 CI 失败认定为这六个内容文件制造的代码回归。

动机 / Motivation

想了解 LoopX 为什么改动控制面、以及研究中真正取得什么结果的文章读者和内容作者。

旧稿把近期恢复补丁放在主叙事前面，读者难以联系早期事务、原始目标和后续研究结果；新稿先按时间和实际失败展开，再把近期实现放到细节中。

四篇静态文章可构建、阅读和切换语言；新技术案例保留恢复条件，研究结果旁仍有反例、窗口与完整费用限制。

本 PR 不交付新 runtime、不启动实验、不发布影片，也不证明模型、观众理解或已部署站点的收益。

当前 head 的必需 CI 有真实失败，尚无同一不可变 base/head 的完整故障归因，合并资格仍未建立。

改动思路 / Approach

沿用现有静态文章、content-ops 作品修订和 media 技术检查边界，不新增执行、审批或持久化 owner。 当前范围是四篇文章和两份现有创作指南的完整可读修订；运行时修复、影片听审和实验重跑均不在此差异内。

只换标题不能解释研究怎样从可靠反馈走到原始目标、实验尺度、恢复和后续结果；增加一套编辑器或研究状态表又超出这个问题。当前方案直接重排既有文章，把近期实现保留为细节。静态阅读和展开披露不要求用户补配置、复制命令或再次授权；内容作者的技术检查、创意判断和观众证据仍各有边界。

具体改动 / Changes

本次完整审查六文件、+224/-175。没有另行给出已接受的书面选材规范，不能把 PR 的完成声明当作独立规范。判断参考变更前的 设计合同 与原有作品修订边界；没有把父级 RFC 的未来实验资格变成这篇文章的新门槛。

关键代码讲解

1. model-assisted-semantics 以效果成功但 checkpoint 未写、明确拒绝后读失败、旧回执与当前租约、证据更新等序列解释早期工作。我读取了链接的 c0b572d2 历史 CoordinationCommandReceipt.commit 与回归：只写一次，明确拒绝不被后续读失败抹掉，未知提交沿原 operation 恢复。此处是核对历史解释，没有声称重跑那些后端测试。
2. research-history 让反馈、目标、实验尺度和成果进入主线；review-cadence 保留未完成 Todo 上的 settled work Turn 计数。我读取了链接的 b92bff43 回归，核对未结算不计数、重复历史不加倍及证据支持继续原任务。初始领先、后续提升、最佳保留、Schema 负例和计费边界没有合成一个因果结论。
3. Source-led selection and whole-film refinement 和 media 的现有 Bounds and review 链接同一创作指南。必须实际听看才能声称完成相应判断，解码或整片峰值不能替代听审；这是作者指导，未新增机器状态、renderer 保证或发布权限。

独立运行站点 TypeScript/build 与 SEO smoke 通过。四文档均只有一个 H1、没有重复 ID、保留全部旧 anchors，局部 fragment 有效；中英 PR 引用集合分别为35和20且一致。全部文章与作者原视觉验证版本 5c30b51 字节一致，因此 PR 描述中附带的历史 before/after 图仍有明确适用基础。全部六个候选的隔离边界扫描 errors=0；未创建的隔离 runtime 与原 README 非密钥 credential 分类说明的 warning 保留。

对主干的风险 / Risks

最强内容风险是技术构建通过却夸大历史因果、抹掉已知拒绝或省略比较条件。已针对这些具体反例读完整差异、历史实现及实际长页面。新指南没有 substring 分类、强制 gate、全局启用或执行副作用；默认 runtime 和 canonical state 完全不在六文件差异内。较小的维护边界是原文重排和一个指南链接，未发现需要另建 owner 的理由。

但当前 Actions run 40824604616 不能报告为通过。dashboard-browser (2) 在 goal-workspace-m2 的冻结1秒 lens-switch 预算观察到1328.94ms；test-shard (4) 报 brief digest、supervisor cleanup 和 Lark current-message framing 三项失败；test-shard (6) 报 runtime 权限恢复和 setup 后进程回收两项失败，另有 shard 取消及聚合失败。我读取了这些实际 job 日志，没有以站点 build 消除它们，也没有放宽时间上限。

这六个内容文件没有修改上述 causal owners，但“未修改”尚不等于严格的基线归因；本轮未执行每一故障在同环境不可变 base/head 的对应工作负载，因此 disposition 保持 unresolved。最小下一步是定位这些原 case，提交需要的修复或提供满足当前合同的同条件对照，再核对同一 head 的资格。不是要求重跑历史 benchmark、补新影片或改写叙事来迁就 CI。该验证缺口是本轮 REQUEST_CHANGES 的依据，不能据此宣称本 PR 导致了这些运行时故障。

我的整体评价 / Verdict

内容改动贴合公开编辑目标，复用已有 owner，新增解释有明确来源和局限；long_horizon 在本差异的非执行边界内保留，user_experience 的本地阅读有所改善。当前交付判断仍是 not_yet_proven，原因限于上述必需验证未完成。

实际检查了长文章的桌面技术案例、390px 两篇文章首屏与展开的比较条件：标题和正文层次清楚，横向大表保留局部滚动，失败及比较限制仍紧邻数字。

未独立测试观众理解、整片声音、线上部署或安装行为；本地静态预览不能证明这些结果。

完整审查与内容检查已经执行；当前 CI 失败归因、独立接受和 merge readiness 没有被认证。没有合并、启用实验或发布影片。

English verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES — 185e513305285172d3e55dcc7cfbca690e1a2de7. Static build, SEO, four-document anchors/bilingual references and actual desktop/narrow reading pass. Current required CI contains concrete failures whose immutable-base attribution remains unverified. This is a validation hold, not a claim that the six documentation files caused those runtime failures. Preserve the frozen budgets and qualify the unchanged head after repair or decisive attribution.

[huangruiteng]

Reviewer: model_agent · GPT-5 · OpenAI · self_reported · effort_unavailable

精确 head：1a35c22d8744809b144fae6cabc10f00ea7cc430。结论：APPROVE，没有阻断发现。修复后的最终差分回到正文声明的六个内容文件；12 张 review PNG 不再进入仓库，只作为 PR 附件保留。

动机 / Motivation

第一次接触 LoopX 的读者和技术内容作者需要从两篇双语长文理解控制面为什么这样演进；当故事只聚焦近期修复时，他们很难把早期事务语义与后续研究结果连起来。

此前文章把近期恢复工作放在前面，早期 claim/lease、receipt 恢复与后续基准决策彼此割裂；现在按可靠反馈、原始目标、实验尺度、恢复和完整成本重排，保留失败与反例，使同一读者能沿一条时间线恢复上下文。

当前 head 的四篇文章和一个已存在的整片创作指南提供可构建、可读且中英证据引用一致的解释；它改善公开理解入口，不改变 runtime，也不把历史实现说成新近修复。

不重跑 benchmark、不认证影片或声音质量、不发布作品、不证明部署站点的读者理解提升；这些仍是独立的真实路径验收。

改动思路 / Approach

变更沿用现有静态博客、content-ops 作品修订和 media 技术检查边界。入口是公开 HTML 与两份现有 README；权威内容是仓库中的静态来源，提交后的副作用只是构建静态站点或让 Agent/作者读到更新后的指南。没有 runtime 状态迁移、权限授予、外部 effect 或自动启用路径，失效恢复由站点构建、SEO smoke、锚点检查和人工内容审阅承担。

当前 PR 边界是公开解释与已有 authoring guidance 的修订，不新增 editor、renderer、审批流或持久化 owner。更小的补丁可以只修一个标题或一个段落，但无法解决“近期修复遮住完整历史”的阅读问题；扩大为运行时改造又会混淆解释对象本身。因此本次完整重排是有界且必要的，而 review 图片移出仓库进一步让最终差分只承载有长期消费方的源文件。

具体改动 / Changes

最终 diff 为 6 个文件、+224/−175，全部是文档或指导性内容，没有 test/fixture、生成代码或机械移动。没有单独接受的 RFC 作为这次 editorial rewrite 的规范；交付判断基于本次用户任务、仓库 AGENTS.md、既有设计合同与内容能力边界，因此 spec_basis 记为 no_spec。以下四点对应本 PR 自述的三项验收标准：历史选材与双语同步、整页可读性，以及复用现有内容能力补充整片精修指导。

关键内容讲解

1. model-assisted-semantics 把“动作发生但 checkpoint 未写”“明确拒绝后读失败”“旧 receipt 遇当前 lease”“证据更新误重装 monitor”放在迁移历史中解释。关键不变量是区分已确认提交、确定拒绝和未知结果，并让恢复沿用原 operation identity；文章同时声明 provider recovery 支持是 exactly-once 解释的边界。
2. review-cadence 解释长而未完成的 Todo 为何仍可在同一任务上触发方向 review：计数基础是已结算的有效 work Turn，缺 settlement receipt 或重复历史不得推进，证据也可支持继续原路线。这里核对的是历史行为说明，没有声称重跑 benchmark。
3. Source-led selection and whole-film refinement 扩展现有创作指导，要求按时间线选材、从 canonical source 精修、检查整片信息密度与播放器实际音轨，并把技术就绪、创意判断和观众证据分开。它没有新增机器 obligation、自动接受或发布权限。
4. Bounds and review 让 media 技术检查指向同一整片精修工作流，明确编码、峰值和 transcript 不能替代完整听看或观众理解。该链接复用现有 owner，没有复制第二套创作流程。

对主干的风险 / Risks

没有发现阻断项。最强内容风险不是代码故障，而是叙事读起来像因果证明：例如把整体系统早期分数提升归因给某个恢复机制，或把历史解释说成此次新修。当前文字保留了同窗口、不同 treatment、单次 run、缺失/停止/valid-zero 等条件，也明确历史回归是“已检查、未重跑”，因此没有跨过证据边界。

负向检查覆盖两个具体失败：中英 PR 引用集合不一致会被来源脚本拒绝，错误发布 base 下的 guide 链接会被 smoke:seo:bases 拒绝。当前六文件公开边界扫描、锚点/H1/重复 ID、双语引用和 diff 检查均通过；修复后的内容与已审查的 5c30b51 字节一致，移图提交只删除未被源文件引用的附件目录。

检查	结果	当前 head 证据
changed invariant positive	PASS	站点 build、SEO、双语 bases、四文档锚点与引用一致性
material negative	PASS	smoke:seo:bases 的坏 guide link 与错误 publication base 负例
repository required checks	PASS	premerge 19/19：diff/RFC、10 个 catalog、8 个 content-ops、公开边界
real backend	N/A	纯静态文章与作者指导，没有 backend/runtime 合约变化

风险仍包括 GitHub PR attachment 的可用性依赖，以及未独立测试真实读者的理解效果。PR 描述中的附件链接与当前 head 一致可用；本次未做线上站点刷新、影片听审或受众实验，因此不把它们写成已验收。

我的整体评价 / Verdict

APPROVE。 精确 head 1a35c22d8744809b144fae6cabc10f00ea7cc430 解决了原问题：两篇双语文章现在从早期控制面事务和可靠反馈出发，再进入目标连续性、实验尺度、恢复与完整成本；整片创作指导则复用已有 owner 补齐实际播放器、音轨和听审边界。long_horizon 保持 preserved，因为本 PR 不改变执行、调度或持久状态；user_experience 为 improved，因为默认首屏的叙事主线更清楚，原实现细节仍可在展开区或正文后半段找到。

实际排版证据复用了 PR 附件中 1440×1000 与 390×844 的静态预览，并确认四个文章文件与这些捕获所对应的 5c30b51 字节一致；当前 head 的本地 production preview 又验证了 TS 文章 13 个章节、32,239 字，EdgeBench 8 个二级章节、5 个 details 和 29,087 字正文。桌面与窄屏没有 document-wide horizontal overflow，宽表保留局部滚动；标签、数字、失败和边界仍靠近对应叙事。未验证范围是线上部署、真实设备与受众理解，截图不能证明这些效果。

内容能力仍是 advisory guidance，没有 machine flag 或忽略后的自动惩罚；默认 runtime、schema、权限、配额和外部 side effect 完全不变。没有新增语义词表、状态分类或公共协议。按 loopx-meta 的 wait_for_ci=false，本轮不查询或等待远端 CI；exact-head 的本地 premerge 和内容路径证据已覆盖本 PR 的改变不变量。合并资格仍需随后单独读取 ready=true。

English verdict: APPROVE — 1a35c22d8744809b144fae6cabc10f00ea7cc430. The corrected six-file documentation diff passes build, both SEO bases, document structure/bilingual-reference checks, public-boundary scanning, and the complete 19-check premerge gate. No review PNG remains in the repository; no blocking finding or changed runtime contract was found.

Resolved at 1a35c22: the prior blocker was unresolved CI attribution at the obsolete head 185e513. The PR now contains only the six documented content files; exact-head local premerge passes 19/19 (diff/RFC, catalog canaries, content-ops and public boundary), site build/SEO both bases and document structure checks pass, and the current independent exact-head review approves. The earlier review had no inline comments. Historical runtime failures were not attributed to this documentation diff.