The push-access entry carried its own copy of the argument, and one line of it had already drifted from dejima's: it said the eager agent's pull request is something the operator should have decided rather than discovered, which puts the cost on the operator and implies approving it would be fine. dejima's version puts the cost where it lands - on maintainers already triaging a flood of unsolicited AI-generated pull requests - and says the block exists so it cannot happen, not so you get to approve it first.
That is the drift a second copy produces, found within a day of writing it. The entry now keeps only what this document needs, states that closing the CI chain follows from the principle rather than being the reason for it, and links to dejima's section for the argument so there is one copy to keep right.
The maturity disclaimer is carried in the same three places dejima and the sister project use, with test/disclaimer.bats pinning it. Duplicated rather than linked, which is the opposite of the decision above and deliberate: a disclaimer behind a link is one the reader does not see, and its whole value is being on the page where the security argument is being made.
branderson
1faf85be5c