# Local CCRA Review Report

## 1. Return Metadata

- project_id: the-mindscape-of-bro-tsong
- review_round: round-04
- local_pass: pilot-01
- runtime_id: ccra-local-review
- runtime_version: 0.1.0
- agent_id: ccra-local-reviewer
- agent_version: 0.1.0
- invocation_mode: prompt_path_reference
- carrier_type: codex_thread
- child_session_id: 019edca7-48f3-79d3-be4a-550f4df0f13c
- persistent_available: yes, if this Codex child thread is resumed
- execution_status: returned
- simulation_only: false
- report_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/04_LOCAL_CCRA_REVIEW_REPORT.md
- returned_output_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/returned-output.md
- generated_at: 2026-06-19

## 2. Review Scope

- primary_question: Does Local CCRA produce Web CCRA-level review quality when it can inspect the full local Round 04 evidence set?
- scope_statement: Review Round 04 blind routing evaluation evidence as a historical pilot, focusing on invocation authenticity, persistence, report quality, evidence coverage, non-target behavior awareness, lifecycle/scope discipline, and readiness gaps for future Round 05 use.
- non_goals:
  - Do not decide Owner approval.
  - Do not replace Web CCRA final review.
  - Do not promote lifecycle status.
  - Do not modify selector rules, model cards, model JSON, regression cases, review bundles, or Owner decision files.
  - Do not treat this pilot as Round 05 acceptance.
- local_tuning_stage: historical_pilot
- web_final_review_target: none_for_this_pilot

## 3. Inputs Actually Received

- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/prompt-to-send.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/agent-invocation-packet.md`
- canonical CCPE Agent, Runtime, setup, template, and helper integration files from `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/ccpe-system`
- required knowledge base path: `knowledge_assets/`
- review context and manifest: `review-context.md`, `review-file-manifest.json`
- Round 04 primary evidence: `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md`, `selector/round04_blind_inputs.json`, `selector/selector_rules.json`
- optional Round 04.1 post-patch evidence: `reports/Round04_1_post_patch_routing_verification_report_2026-06-18.md`, `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/`
- helper outputs under `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/`

## 4. Files Actually Read

### Invocation And CCPE Runtime

- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/prompt-to-send.md` - dispatch prompt and hard constraints.
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/agent-invocation-packet.md` - formal invocation packet and output contract.
- `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/ccpe-system/agents/agent-specs/ccra-local-reviewer.agent.md` - reviewer role, source policy, authority boundaries, and reporting requirements.
- `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/ccpe-system/runtimes/hybrid/ccra-local-review.runtime.md` - runtime stages, child-session and helper rules.
- `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/ccpe-system/runtimes/hybrid/ccra-local-review-runtime-setup.md` - setup sequence and helper command contracts.
- `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/ccpe-system/runtimes/hybrid/ccra-local-review-report.template.md` - required report sections.
- `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/ccpe-system/integrations/skills-vault/ccra-local-review-helpers.integration.md` - helper registration and helper-output authority.

### Project Governance And Knowledge Assets

- `README.md`
- `AGENTS.md`
- `PROJECTS.md`
- `docs/WORKFLOW.md`
- `docs/DECISIONS.md`
- `docs/QPI_CONTEXTUAL_ROUTING_RULES.md`
- `docs/INTELLECTUAL_ARCHAEOLOGY_DEPTH_GATE.md`
- `knowledge_assets/README.md`
- `knowledge_assets/00_用户背景与产品上下文.md`
- `knowledge_assets/01_核心模型地图.md`
- `knowledge_assets/02_模型卡结构规范.md`
- `knowledge_assets/03_核心模型抽取样板.md`
- `knowledge_assets/06_模型稳固性评级规则.md`
- `knowledge_assets/07_产品规划过程记录.md`
- `knowledge_assets/08_CCRA模型库MVP质量门与交接协议.md`
- `knowledge_assets/09_数据治理与模型调用机制说明.md`
- `knowledge_assets/10_本地CCRA评审机制说明.md`

### Local Review Run Records And Helper Outputs

- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/run-notes.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/review-metadata.json`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/review-context.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/review-file-manifest.json`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/owner-decision.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/gate-manifest.yaml`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/lifecycle-guard-config.yaml`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/bundle-audit.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/bundle-audit.json`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/gate-run-report.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/gate-run-report.json`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/lifecycle-status-guard-scan.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/lifecycle-status-guard-scan.json`

### Round 04 And Round 04.1 Evidence

- `reports/Round04_blind_input_candidates_2026-06-18.md`
- `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md`
- `reports/Round04_1_post_patch_routing_verification_report_2026-06-18.md`
- `reports/selector_regression_report_v0.2.md`
- `reports/selector_calibration_smoke_report.md`
- `reports/validation_report.md`
- `reports/index_rebuild_report.md`
- `reports/model_card_sync_report_v0.2.md`
- `reports/content_review_report_v0.2.md`
- `reports/Codex新会话交接文档_Round04.1关闭与Round05准备_2026-06-18.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF_04.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/01_ROUND03_CLOSURE_AND_ROUND04_SCOPE_04.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/02_BLIND_INPUT_SET_04.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/03_ROUTING_EVALUATION_REPORT_04.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/04_REVIEW_QUESTIONS_FOR_GPT_04.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF_04.1.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/01_RULE_PATCH_SUMMARY_AND_DIFF_04.1.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/02_EXPECTED_ROUTING_LABELS_04.1.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/03_POST_PATCH_ROUTING_VERIFICATION_REPORT_04.1.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/04_REGRESSION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_04.1.md`
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.1.md`

### Selector, Tests, Scripts, And Model Status

- `selector/README.md`
- `selector/selector_rules.json`
- `selector/round04_blind_inputs.json`
- `selector/selector_calibration_inputs.json`
- `tests/README.md`
- `tests/test_round04_blind_routing.py`
- `tests/test_round04_post_patch_verification.py`
- `tests/qpi.regression.json`
- `tests/intellectual_archaeology.regression.json`
- `tests/regression_cases.json`
- `scripts/run_selector_demo.py`
- `scripts/run_round04_blind_routing.py`
- `scripts/run_round04_post_patch_verification.py`
- `models/qpi.model.json`
- `models/intellectual_archaeology.model.json`
- `models/model_index.json`

## 5. Automation Outputs Used

- helper_id: review-context-builder
  - output_path: `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/review-context.md`
  - status: available
  - how_used: navigation index only; it did not replace direct file reading.
- helper_id: review-bundle-audit
  - output_path: `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/bundle-audit.md`
  - status: available_with_findings
  - how_used: evidence that the generic audit profile reported two blocking findings against the Round 04 bundle.
- helper_id: regression-validation-gate-runner
  - output_path: `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/gate-run-report.md`
  - status: dry_run
  - how_used: evidence that three gates were declared but not executed in this pilot helper run.
- helper_id: lifecycle-status-guard-scan
  - output_path: `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/lifecycle-status-guard-scan.md`
  - status: available_with_findings
  - how_used: candidate lifecycle/status overclaim list only; final lifecycle assessment below is reviewer judgment.
- helper_id: routing-behavior-diff-audit
  - output_path: none
  - status: skipped
  - how_used: not used; this is a tuning gap because Round 04.1 has before/after behavior evidence.

## 6. Executive Summary

Result: `needs_more_local_tuning`.

Local evidence was materially stronger than a limited Web upload would be. This child session could inspect project rules, the full knowledge base, Round 04 and Round 04.1 bundles, reports, selector rules, tests, scripts, helper outputs, and current model status directly. That local access is enough to produce a stronger first-pass review than a compressed upload-only review.

The Round 04 evidence also shows Local CCRA tuning gaps that should be addressed before formal Round 05 use. The largest gaps are not product-source blockers for this historical pilot; they are runtime/helper/report-quality gaps: the bundle audit profile produced generic-profile blockers against versioned bundle names, the validation helper was dry-run only, routing diff audit was skipped even though before/after routing evidence exists, and the lifecycle scan produced broad findings that need triage rather than automatic blocking.

Round 04.1's selector repair looks appropriately scoped: four target cases passed, `R04-BI-022` was documented as collateral behavior and regression-covered, and both models remain `draft / B / pending`. However, Round 04 also exposed unresolved calibration questions around governance, capacity/resource/path, ambiguous low-context inputs, and natural Intellectual Archaeology under-selection. Those should be treated as future calibration or Round 05 scope decisions, not silently patched inside this pilot.

This report is suitable for later comparison against Web CCRA feedback if it is used as pilot-local reviewer output, not as Owner approval, Web CCRA approval, lifecycle promotion, or Round 05 acceptance.

## 7. Findings

### Finding LCCRA-R04-P01-F01

Classification: major

Title: Local file access produced a stronger review surface than a limited upload bundle.

Evidence:

- `review-file-manifest.json` reports no missing source roots and 77 included files across docs, knowledge assets, reports, selector, tests, and review bundles.
- `knowledge_assets/10_本地CCRA评审机制说明.md` defines Local CCRA as formal local first review that reads project evidence directly.
- `README.md`, `PROJECTS.md`, and `docs/WORKFLOW.md` define Local CCRA run records, review bundle boundaries, and Owner/Web authority boundaries.
- Direct reads included `knowledge_assets/`, Round 04 reports, Round 04.1 reports, selector rules, scripts, tests, and helper outputs.

Why It Matters:

The pilot question asks whether Local CCRA can do better than a limited Web upload. For this round, the answer is yes: the reviewer could inspect surrounding governance and runtime context that a compressed Web bundle would usually omit or summarize.

Recommended Action:

Keep Local CCRA as a file-first first-pass review lane, but require the report to cite exact files read and separate helper evidence from reviewer judgment.

Owner Decision Required: yes

Blocks Web Final Review: no

Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes, because Local CCRA evidence does not itself authorize lifecycle promotion.

### Finding LCCRA-R04-P01-F02

Classification: major

Title: Helper outputs are not yet reliable enough for formal Round 05 without tuning.

Evidence:

- `helper-outputs/bundle-audit.md` reports `FAIL`, missing `manifest` and `validation_sidecar`, while the bundle itself has `BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md`.
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md` exists and lists the Round 04 bundle files.
- `helper-outputs/gate-run-report.md` reports `DRY_RUN`, with three declared gates and zero commands run.
- `agent-invocation-packet.md` records `routing-behavior-diff-audit` as skipped.
- `reports/Round04_1_post_patch_routing_verification_report_2026-06-18.md` contains exactly the kind of before/after routing evidence that a routing diff helper should consume.

Why It Matters:

The helper layer is useful, but in this pilot it produced evidence that requires reviewer interpretation. A generic bundle profile treated versioned bundle naming as missing manifest evidence, and dry-run gate output cannot be cited as fresh validation execution.

Recommended Action:

Before Round 05, tune helper profiles to recognize versioned bundle names, decide whether zip validation sidecars are required for each bundle type, run gates in approved `run` mode when fresh validation is required, and run routing-behavior-diff-audit when before/after routing reports exist.

Owner Decision Required: yes, for whether helper execution should be mandatory before formal Round 05.

Blocks Web Final Review: no for this historical pilot; yes if Round 05 claims fresh local gate execution without running it.

Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes.

### Finding LCCRA-R04-P01-F03

Classification: calibration

Title: Round 04.1 fixed reviewed failures without broadening QPI into every organization-like input.

Evidence:

- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/02_EXPECTED_ROUTING_LABELS_04.1.md` limits target labels to `R04-BI-002`, `R04-BI-024`, `R04-BI-035`, and `R04-BI-036`.
- `reports/Round04_1_post_patch_routing_verification_report_2026-06-18.md` reports four targeted cases checked, zero targeted failures, and five behavior changes.
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/01_RULE_PATCH_SUMMARY_AND_DIFF_04.1.md` states that governance, capacity, and ambiguous-context cases are not patched in 04.1.
- `selector/README.md` records the Round 04.1 selector rule as translation no-call, instruction/payload separation, IA hard exclusion variants, and depth-limited QPI override.

Why It Matters:

This is good scope discipline. Round 04.1 did not turn QPI into a generic detector for every governance, organization, capacity, or ambiguous input. That preserves the project's non-goal boundary and lets future calibration decide recall expansion deliberately.

Recommended Action:

Treat the unpatched Round 04 categories as future calibration candidates. Do not broaden QPI or IA recall until Owner/Web CCRA identifies which category should become Round 05 scope.

Owner Decision Required: yes

Blocks Web Final Review: no for the historical pilot; potentially yes for a future claim that selector calibration is complete.

Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes.

### Finding LCCRA-R04-P01-F04

Classification: calibration

Title: `R04-BI-022` is a non-target behavior change, but it is documented and regression-covered.

Evidence:

- `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md` records `R04-BI-022` before patch as `selected_models=[]` and `no_call=True`.
- `reports/Round04_1_post_patch_routing_verification_report_2026-06-18.md` records `R04-BI-022` after patch as `selected_models=['qpi']`, rejected IA, and `no_call=False`.
- `reports/Codex新会话交接文档_Round04.1关闭与Round05准备_2026-06-18.md` records the rationale: the user rejected deeper expansion, not lightweight dominant-scarcity judgment.
- `tests/qpi.regression.json` contains `case_qpi_round04_depth_limited_assumption_scarcity_001`.

Why It Matters:

This is exactly the kind of collateral behavior Local CCRA should catch. The current evidence handles it correctly: it is not hidden, not retroactively made a target case, and not left without regression protection.

Recommended Action:

Keep `R04-BI-022` as documented collateral behavior and preserve its regression case. In future Local CCRA runs, require a deterministic routing diff helper to surface similar non-target changes automatically.

Owner Decision Required: yes, if the Owner wants to reclassify the collateral judgment.

Blocks Web Final Review: no.

Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes.

### Finding LCCRA-R04-P01-F05

Classification: major

Title: Lifecycle/status guard findings require triage before formal Round 05 use.

Evidence:

- `helper-outputs/lifecycle-status-guard-scan.md` reports 21 blocking findings, mostly approval-claim phrase candidates involving hyphenated Owner-approval wording.
- `docs/QPI_CONTEXTUAL_ROUTING_RULES.md`, `docs/INTELLECTUAL_ARCHAEOLOGY_DEPTH_GATE.md`, `models/qpi.model.json`, `models/intellectual_archaeology.model.json`, and `models/model_index.json` all keep QPI and IA at `draft / B / pending`.
- `knowledge_assets/08_CCRA模型库MVP质量门与交接协议.md` states that engineering contract pass does not equal content stability and that QPI/IA must not be upgraded to stable from validation alone.
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/04_REVIEW_QUESTIONS_FOR_GPT_04.md` explicitly says Round 04 alone must not upgrade lifecycle status.

Why It Matters:

The model lifecycle boundary is currently preserved, but the scan findings show that the status guard needs a triage workflow. Some findings appear to be policy or draft-case phrasing rather than direct lifecycle field changes. Formal Round 05 should not inherit an unresolved `FAIL` scan without reviewer triage.

Recommended Action:

Before Round 05, classify lifecycle scan findings into true overclaims, policy/example language, source review metadata, and accepted decision records. Tune the config or report template so a helper `FAIL` becomes reviewable evidence, not automatic rejection.

Owner Decision Required: yes, for any wording repairs or scan-scope decisions.

Blocks Web Final Review: yes if unresolved findings are included in the claimed review scope.

Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes.

### Finding LCCRA-R04-P01-F06

Classification: calibration

Title: Invocation authenticity is adequate for this pilot, but return-state bookkeeping remains orchestrator work.

Evidence:

- `run-notes.md` records `carrier_type: codex_thread`, `invocation_mode: prompt_path_reference`, `child_session_id: 019edca7-48f3-79d3-be4a-550f4df0f13c`, and `dispatch_status: dispatched`.
- `agent-invocation-packet.md` requires a real child session or equivalent isolated participant context and sets `simulation_allowed: false`.
- This report and `returned-output.md` are written by the invoked child session under the exact output contract.
- `run-notes.md` still records `return_status: pending`; this reviewer did not modify it because the user constrained writes to the two required output files.

Why It Matters:

The pilot tests real child-session behavior. The dispatch record is present, but final run bookkeeping still needs the main project session to record return completion after consuming this report.

Recommended Action:

Have the orchestrating main session update `run-notes.md` after receiving this report. Keep reviewer writes limited to the formal output files unless the invocation packet explicitly authorizes run-note updates.

Owner Decision Required: no for bookkeeping; yes for accepting invocation validity if there is any carrier-id mismatch.

Blocks Web Final Review: no.

Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes.

### Finding LCCRA-R04-P01-F07

Classification: minor

Title: Review context includes cache/binary artifacts that should be excluded from future context manifests.

Evidence:

- `review-context.md` and `review-file-manifest.json` include `tests/__pycache__/*.pyc` and optional raw zip files.
- `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md` states raw zip files are optional and excludes cache files from raw zip contents.

Why It Matters:

Cache and binary artifacts increase manifest noise and may distract future reviewers. They do not block this pilot because source files were still available and read directly.

Recommended Action:

Tune `review-context-builder` profiles to exclude `__pycache__/`, `*.pyc`, and optionally list zip archives as binary side artifacts rather than normal review files.

Owner Decision Required: no, unless the Owner wants zip contents audited as mandatory evidence.

Blocks Web Final Review: no.

Blocks Lifecycle Change: no, but lifecycle remains unpromoted for other reasons.

## 8. Non-Target Behavior Changes

Observed non-target or collateral behavior from Round 04.1:

- `R04-BI-022`: before `selected=[]`, `no_call=True`; after `selected=['qpi']`, rejected IA, `no_call=False`. Assessment: documented collateral behavior, regression-covered, not a hidden failure.

Target changes recorded in the same before/after pool:

- `R04-BI-002`: translation task moved from QPI selection to no-call.
- `R04-BI-024`: explicit IA refusal moved from IA+QPI selection to QPI-only with IA rejected.
- `R04-BI-035`: depth-limited dominant-scarcity request moved from no-call to QPI.
- `R04-BI-036`: depth-limited scarcity-set request moved from no-call to QPI.

Unpatched Round 04 categories to keep visible for future calibration:

- governance / responsibility / consensus cases: `R04-BI-010` through `R04-BI-013`
- capacity / resource / path cases: `R04-BI-014`, `R04-BI-015`, `R04-BI-017`, with `R04-BI-016` already selecting QPI
- natural IA boundary cases: `R04-BI-026`, `R04-BI-027`, `R04-BI-038`
- ambiguous low-context and growth how-to cases: `R04-BI-028` through `R04-BI-030`, `R04-BI-037`

These are not Round 04.1 failures unless Owner/Web CCRA defines expected labels for them.

## 9. Engineering Pass vs Product Judgment

What engineering evidence shows:

- Round 04 first blind run preserved no-answer-key discipline and wrote a routing report over 38 frozen inputs.
- Round 04.1 added targeted regression cases, patched selector rules, reran the frozen pool, and reported zero targeted failures across four reviewed cases.
- Current reports show index check, validation, selector regression, selector calibration smoke, and model/card sync as PASS in existing project reports.
- Current model JSON status remains `draft / B / pending` for QPI and Intellectual Archaeology.

What product/model-governance question remains:

- Which Round 04 unpatched cases should become calibration inputs, regression cases, or future selector changes?
- Should natural IA boundary cases such as `R04-BI-026`, `R04-BI-027`, and `R04-BI-038` continue to route through QPI first, or should IA recall be broadened with a stricter depth gate?
- Should governance and capacity cases that currently no-call become low-confidence QPI candidates, or stay unpatched to avoid over-selecting QPI?
- Which lifecycle-scan findings are true wording risks versus helper false positives or acceptable policy language?

What evidence would close the gap:

- Owner/Web CCRA expected labels for selected Round 04 unpatched cases.
- A routing-behavior-diff-audit report over Round 04 before/after behavior.
- A non-dry-run gate report, if fresh validation is required for Round 05.
- A triaged lifecycle-status scan report.
- Owner decision entries for accepted, rejected, deferred, and escalated Local CCRA findings.

## 10. Lifecycle And Scope Guard

Claim: QPI and Intellectual Archaeology remain draft / B / pending.

- Evidence: `models/qpi.model.json`, `models/intellectual_archaeology.model.json`, `models/model_index.json`, `docs/QPI_CONTEXTUAL_ROUTING_RULES.md`, `docs/INTELLECTUAL_ARCHAEOLOGY_DEPTH_GATE.md`.
- Required authority: Owner and Web/CCRA review for any lifecycle change.
- Assessment: Preserved. No lifecycle promotion should be inferred from Round 04, Round 04.1, or this Local CCRA pilot.

Claim: Round 04.1 closeout does not start or accept Round 05.

- Evidence: `reports/Codex新会话交接文档_Round04.1关闭与Round05准备_2026-06-18.md` says Round 04.1 closeout did not enter Round 05.
- Required authority: Owner decision for Round 05 start/scope.
- Assessment: Preserved. This pilot is comparison/tuning evidence only.

Claim: Engineering PASS means product acceptance.

- Evidence: `knowledge_assets/08_CCRA模型库MVP质量门与交接协议.md`, `knowledge_assets/09_数据治理与模型调用机制说明.md`, and `content_review_report_v0.2.md` explicitly reject that equivalence.
- Required authority: Owner/Web CCRA content and lifecycle review.
- Assessment: Not supported. Engineering evidence is necessary but insufficient.

Claim: Local CCRA report equals Web CCRA final approval.

- Evidence: `knowledge_assets/10_本地CCRA评审机制说明.md`, `docs/WORKFLOW.md`, and `ccra-local-review.runtime.md` say Local CCRA does not replace Owner or Web CCRA.
- Required authority: Owner decides whether to include this report in any Web CCRA upload.
- Assessment: Not supported.

## 11. Local Tuning Recommendations

1. Add a routing-behavior-diff-audit step for Round 04.1-style before/after reports, including target and non-target behavior classification.
2. Tune `review-bundle-audit` for this project's versioned bundle names, or add a `the-mindscape-round-bundle` profile that recognizes `BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md` and optional sidecar rules.
3. Decide whether gate-runner should run declared gates before formal Round 05 Local CCRA; if yes, run in approved `run` mode and cite logs.
4. Triage lifecycle scan findings and update the guard config or wording rules so policy examples and true approval claims are separated.
5. Add a required report subsection for unresolved calibration candidates, especially governance/capacity inputs and natural IA boundary cases.
6. Exclude cache and binary artifacts from review-context manifests unless the round explicitly audits packaging.
7. Have the main project session update `run-notes.md` after report return; the child reviewer should remain read-only except for contracted outputs.

## 12. Web Final Review Readiness

Choice: `ready_after_local_repairs`

Explanation:

This historical pilot report is ready for later comparison against Web CCRA feedback. It is not a Web final review package and should not be used as Round 05 acceptance. Before formal Round 05 Local CCRA use, the project should repair helper profiles, run or explicitly waive fresh gates, add routing diff helper output where before/after behavior exists, and triage lifecycle findings.

For the Round 04 / 04.1 historical evidence itself, no additional selector patch is recommended by this Local CCRA report. The next product step should be Owner/Web CCRA scoping for Round 05, not automatic selector expansion.

## 13. Owner Decision Points

- decision_id: OD-LCCRA-R04-P01-001
  - decision_needed: Accept this child-session output as valid Local CCRA pilot output?
  - options: accept / rerun in another child session / mark invalid
  - recommended_default: accept, because run notes record a child session id and this report reads local files directly.

- decision_id: OD-LCCRA-R04-P01-002
  - decision_needed: Should Local CCRA helper execution be mandatory before Round 05?
  - options: mandatory run mode / dry-run acceptable / helper outputs optional
  - recommended_default: mandatory for context, bundle, lifecycle, and routing diff; gate execution depends on Owner approval.

- decision_id: OD-LCCRA-R04-P01-003
  - decision_needed: Which Round 04 unpatched categories should become Round 05 calibration scope?
  - options: governance/capacity QPI recall / natural IA recall / ambiguous context policy / no selector work
  - recommended_default: decide scope explicitly before changing selector rules.

- decision_id: OD-LCCRA-R04-P01-004
  - decision_needed: Should this Local CCRA report be sent to Web CCRA for comparison?
  - options: include full report / include summary only / keep local-only
  - recommended_default: keep local-only until Owner provides Web CCRA feedback to compare.

## 14. Limits And Uncertainty

- I did not modify any project file except this report and `returned-output.md`.
- I did not update `run-notes.md`; the main project session should record return completion.
- I did not execute validation gates during this child review. The helper gate report was dry-run only, while existing project reports record prior PASS evidence.
- I did not inspect zip contents manually beyond the helper's readable-zip evidence and bundle manifests.
- No Web CCRA feedback for this pilot was supplied yet, so comparison quality can only be judged prospectively.
- I did not decide Owner approval, Web approval, lifecycle promotion, or Round 05 acceptance.

## 15. Resume Instructions

Resume this same child session when comparing against later Web CCRA feedback or tuning the `ccra-local-reviewer` report style.

For a same-session resume, provide:

- this report path
- `returned-output.md`
- any Owner decision file updates
- the Web CCRA feedback file or pasted path
- a list of changed evidence since this report

For a new child session, include:

- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/agent-invocation-packet.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/04_LOCAL_CCRA_REVIEW_REPORT.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/returned-output.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/owner-decision.md` if filled
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/review-context.md`
- `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/review-file-manifest.json`
- helper outputs under `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/`
- any Web CCRA comparison material supplied by the Owner
