EPS Dashboard

Overview / Motivation

Auto-filed by the /daily Step-C parked-candidate sweep (2026-07-08) from a candidate parked on task #1006 by a recursion-guarded workflow-fix session.

Goal

Add a short verdict-lattice subsection to planner.md (§3 Hypothesis / verdict-lattice guidance; possibly .claude/rules/planner-section-reference.md) prescribing the ⇔ declaration form plus the 'N/A — no registered verdict lattice' escape.

Workflow gap

Bug observed: c20-class tier-1 review gates (FAIL-capable on both defect classes) require the 'DISJOINT and exhaustive: ⇔ ; ...' verdict-lattice declaration form, but no planner-side spec tells planners to write it — only 2 corpus files carry it.
Why it is a workflow gap: Plans only adopt the registered-lattice form when a critic bounces them; a planner-side spec makes adoption proactive.
Confidence (emitter): medium
Sweep verification (2026-07-08): grep for 'verdict.lattice', '⇔', and 'DISJOINT and exhaustive' in .claude/agents/planner.md and .claude/rules/planner-section-reference.md returns nothing on main (2026-07-08); no open proposed/on_hold task mentions a verdict lattice.

Proposed change (candidate diff sketch — refine in planning)

(none — synthesized from prose follow-up; add a ~10-line subsection to planner.md §3 naming the ' ⇔ ' form, the disjoint+exhaustive requirement, and the N/A escape)

Scope / surfaces

Primary target: .claude/agents/planner.md
Grep the workflow surface for the pattern before editing (grep -rln '<pattern>' .claude/ CLAUDE.md scripts/) and update every hit; list them in the plan.

Constraints / invariants

Workflow-surface only — never experiment code, configs/, or tasks/.
scripts/workflow_lint.py --check-asks passes; ruff on touched files passes; if workflow.yaml or CLAUDE.md change, they stay consistent with the rule file.
This session runs under EPM_WORKFLOW_FIX_SESSION=1 and carries a workflow_fix_target: Provenance line — it MUST NOT auto-route any of its own subagents' workflow-fix candidates (recursion guard, workflow-fix-on-bug.md).

Provenance

workflow_fix_target: .claude/agents/planner.md
origin: parked candidate on task #1006 at 2026-07-04T13:33:32Z

Verbatim parked note:

parked — running under workflow_fix_target Provenance (recursion guard, .claude/rules/workflow-fix-on-bug.md § Recursion guard). Candidate (from plan v3 §15, surfaced by the planner): document the ⇔ registered-lattice form in the planner spec so future plans adopt it proactively. target_file: .claude/agents/planner.md (§3 Hypothesis / verdict-lattice guidance; possibly .claude/rules/planner-section-reference.md). bug_observed: c20's tier-1 (FAIL-capable both defect classes) requires the 'DISJOINT and exhaustive: ⇔ ; ...' form, but no planner-side spec tells planners to write it — only 2 corpus files carry it today. proposed_change: add a short verdict-lattice subsection to planner.md prescribing the ⇔ declaration form + the 'N/A — no registered verdict lattice' escape. confidence: medium. related_task: #1006. Routing: parked for the next non-workflow-fix orchestrator/human pass — NOT auto-filed from this session.