hygiene(tick-history): shard 0427Z — drain-stale-thread tick

docs/hygiene-history/ticks/2026/05/01/0427Z.md

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+| 2026-05-01T04:27:00Z | opus-4-7 / autonomous-loop tick | 98fc7424 | Stale-PR-thread drain tick (rather than substrate-pile). Prior tick's discipline note explicitly committed to resting unless a real follow-up unblocks. The audit surfaced exactly that: PR #1010 had 1 unresolved Copilot thread + 1 CI failure (paired-edit), #1006 had 11 unresolved threads + green CI, #1008 had 9 unresolved threads + green CI. Per CLAUDE.md *"BLOCKED-with-green-CI means investigate review threads first — don't wait,"* picked the smallest-scope item: #1010. Copilot finding: I had violated non-fusion-discipline by inserting `[sic — typo'd]` editorial note INSIDE the verbatim blockquote, modifying the very text the PR was supposed to preserve verbatim. Fix: blockquote now byte-faithful to Aaron's original message; editorial note moved to a separate paragraph outside, explicitly marked as editorial. MEMORY.md paired-edit annotation added to satisfy the index-integrity check. Thread resolved via GraphQL mutation. Cron 98fc7424 healthy. | [PR #1010 thread fix pushed] / [#1006 #1008 still have unresolved threads — next-tick candidates] / [#1016 still in CI wait] | Copilot's finding was a real catch — I genuinely violated my own stated discipline (the PR title was "preserve verbatim with [sic]" but the [sic] WAS the modification). The class-level lesson: editorial annotations on quoted text MUST stay outside the quote block; the quote is the substrate, the annotation is metadata. Future-Otto reading this: when adding `[sic]` or any other editorial mark to verbatim content, paragraph-it-out, don't inline it. Composes with Aaron's mistake-as-evidence framing — Aaron's typo stays as evidence of his own quote; my editorial belongs elsewhere. |