[BenWestgate]

Restore the focused cleanup review boundary after the historical #98 cleanup was absorbed into later stack work.

The PR is one squashed behavior-preserving cleanup commit:

• remove the unused _correction_plan primary/reduced/timed state and _search_many(reduced=...) argument;
• pass the already-type-checked share list directly to recover_secret() instead of filtering it a second time.

No correction scheduling, capture accounting, wallet behavior, or public input validation changes.

Review shape

Current head 9ea48de is stacked directly on current reviewability-v1 after #57 was merged. The branch now records one squashed commit authored by BenWestgate; the earlier agent-authored replay is no longer the live head.

The production-size gate remains the maintainer-authorized <5200.

Validation

Exact-head Python-package run 37479416800 completed successfully. The composed refreshed stack through #95 also passed all 941 tests normally and under python -O, Ruff check/format, mypy, correction-constant verification, all 57 frozen differential correction cases, and git diff --check.

A fresh Codex review has been requested for 9ea48de; the prior ACK covered the mechanically equivalent pre-rewrite head and all inline threads are resolved.

Human review/integration order is #105 → #99 → #80 → #81 → #95.

Refs #46 and #98.

[BenWestgate]

AI-assisted release-gate re-review performed at the maintainer's request and disclosed per docs/developer/AI_POLICY.md.

ACK d886238.

This is the same two-commit cleanup previously reviewed as #98, replayed directly on refreshed #57. Stable patch-ids match #98 exactly. The changes only remove provably redundant correction-plan state and the already-type-checked share filter; correction scheduling, capture accounting, wallet behavior, and public input validation are unchanged.

Current-base verification: 101 focused CLI/correction tests passed, and the installed source is 5,179 logical lines under the authorized <5200 cap. No correctness blocker found.

[BenWestgate]

Exact-head release-gate re-review: ACK 52c23b3. The two-commit cleanup removes only redundant correction-plan state and a share filter after the all-Share type check; no correction scheduling, capture accounting, wallet behavior, or public validation changes. On the full refreshed restore stack through #95, 935 tests pass normally and under python -O; Ruff, format, strict mypy, correction constants, all 57 frozen differential cases, and the production-size test pass. No code blocker found. Both commits are agent-authored and still require responsible-human rewrite/squash before integration.

[BenWestgate]

Codex current-head re-review: ACK 361feb7.

The current diff is still the narrow behavior-preserving cleanup: _correction_plan() returns only the target lengths it actually uses, _search_many() drops an unread reduced parameter, and recovery passes the already-validated all-Share list directly. No scheduling, capture accounting, wallet behavior, or public validation changes are introduced. There are no inline review threads, and exact-head Python-package run 660 succeeded.

No code blocker found. The two agent-authored commits still require responsible-human rewrite/squash under repository policy before integration.

[BenWestgate]

Codex current-head review at 361feb7: no findings. This removes redundant correction-plan state and an unnecessary runtime share filter without changing the search envelope or validation boundary.

[BenWestgate]

@codex review

Current head was mechanically restacked onto the refreshed audit stack after #57's documentation-only follow-up. Please review this exact head for correctness/regressions; the composed stack passes 941 tests normally and under python -O, Ruff, mypy, correction constants, 57 frozen differential cases, and git diff --check locally.

[BenWestgate]

AI-assisted current-head review, posted at the maintainer's request.

ACK 03b0f8a. This is the same narrow behavior-preserving cleanup mechanically restacked on refreshed #57; the correction search envelope and validation boundaries are unchanged. Exact-head Python-package CI passes. No findings.

[BenWestgate]

@codex review

Please review current head 03b0f8a541 only. This is the final current-head audit check before human review; do not reopen superseded design debates unless there is a correctness, security, or release-blocking issue.

[BenWestgate]

@codex review

Please review the current head 9ea48de only. This is a responsible-human rewrite of the previously reviewed behavior-preserving cleanup; confirm the rewrite did not change the correction/search or recovery contracts.

[BenWestgate]

@codex review

[BenWestgate]

AI-assisted current-head review: ACK 9ea48de. The removed correction-plan state was constant at every live call site (primary == all targets, reduced == empty, timed search enabled), so passing the targets directly preserves the search envelope. The recovery cast follows an explicit all(isinstance(..., Share)) guard and removes only the redundant second filter. Exact-head Python-package CI is green and there are no unresolved review threads. No correctness or release blocker found.

[BenWestgate]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-23T23:04:21.037711Z	9ea48de	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up!

Reviewed commit: 9ea48de7ef

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[BenWestgate]

lgtm