timothy
c794a48462
PR Gates / CI image pin matches docker/ci (pull_request) Successful in 12s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Build & test (.NET) (pull_request) Successful in 16s
PR Gates / Docs update reminder (pull_request) Successful in 16s
PR Gates / decisions lifecycle (pull_request) Successful in 24s
review-verdict/h10 Exempt: docs-only change (no code, no protected path)
Build ErsatzTV Image / Functional E2E (curl + UI contracts) (pull_request) Successful in 29s
Build ErsatzTV Image / EF migration integrity (SQLite + MySql) (pull_request) Successful in 30s
Build ErsatzTV Image / API docs in sync (OpenAPI + endpoint index) (pull_request) Successful in 14s
Review verdict / Set review-verdict status (pull_request) Successful in 17s
Build ErsatzTV Image / Build & push image (amd64) (pull_request) Has been skipped
Build ErsatzTV Image / Formatting (changed .cs conform to .editorconfig) (pull_request) Successful in 13s
PR Gates / Script tests (pytest) (pull_request) Successful in 52s
The record's bold sentence said the base-ref checkout means the workflow "cannot be rewritten by that same PR to weaken its own judgment". That is true of the SCRIPTS the job executes and false of the workflow itself: Gitea resolves a `pull_request` workflow definition from the PR's own head, so a PR editing `review-verdict.yml` runs its rewritten copy — which can delete the checkout outright, or just post `review-verdict/h10=success` and stop. Branch protection requires the context, not an author, and carries `required_approvals: 0` (#672). The scoping already existed further down, under "What is deliberately NOT claimed". That is not good enough for this particular sentence: it is bold, it is the paragraph a reader resolving this record from the catalog lands on, and someone who stops there leaves with the opposite of the truth. A caveat only works if it is reached. So the headline now says what the checkout binds (the scripts, from the already-reviewed base) and a following paragraph states the head-resolution hole directly, with the superseded claim quoted so a reader who remembers it can see it was retracted rather than wonder whether two records disagree. The later paragraph loses its duplicated opener and points at it instead. Docs only; no behaviour change. Same failure class the rest of #649 kept turning up — a claim stronger than the code — reached this time through prose rather than a test. Refs #649, #672 Decisions-Edit: yes