Mark the Quoted Misspelling and Correct What AGENTS.md Carries

.github/copilot-instructions.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Summarized for VS Code's generators. The full rules, rationale, and examples are
 
 ## Reviewing Carried Fleet Content
 
-Several of this repository's governance files are carried from a shared template and kept in sync across a fleet of sibling repositories, among them `AGENTS.md`, `CODESTYLE.md`, `WORKFLOW.md`, this file, and the `repo-config/` rulesets. Most of `GOVERNANCE.md` is universal fleet law: every section that states a rule, as opposed to the two that describe this repository's own directory tree and devcontainer, is byte-locked and verified by an automated byte-for-byte match against the template canonical, not by line-by-line review. `AGENTS.md` is the thin router and carries three byte-locked sections of its own, with no repository-specific ones.
+Several of this repository's governance files are carried from a shared template and kept in sync across a fleet of sibling repositories, among them `AGENTS.md`, `CODESTYLE.md`, `WORKFLOW.md`, this file, and the `repo-config/` rulesets. Most of `GOVERNANCE.md` is universal fleet law: every section that states a rule, as opposed to the two that describe this repository's own directory tree and devcontainer, is byte-locked and verified by an automated byte-for-byte match against the template canonical, not by line-by-line review. `AGENTS.md` is the thin router and carries three byte-locked sections of its own, `Fleet Bootstrap`, `Context and Delegation Discipline`, and `Where the Rules Live`. Everything above the first of those headings is this repository's own prose, saying what this repository is and which local doc owns which subject, and it is editable like any other repository content.
 
 Three constraints follow when reviewing that content.
 
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no
 The sentence tail after the first spelling reports how many comments the round raised and appears in four wordings. It is not coverage, so it is not part of what has to be recognized, and the counts are. Read them into three verdicts and two exemptions:
 
 - **Counts equal** - the round read the whole diff. This is the clean pass.
-- **Counts unequal** - files in the diff have no review at all. Do **not** treat a re-request as the remedy: measured over four pull requests and seven rounds on this repository, every partial round stayed partial at the identical ratio and no round ever recovered, so re-requesting spends a round and changes nothing. Splitting works where it applies and does not apply to a promotion, whose head is `develop`. **The file table in the body does not tell you which file went unread**, and it looks as though it should, which is why it is written down here: measured over 348 review bodies on this repository and 121 on another in this fleet, that table names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, so a table naming every changed file is what a full round carries too and contradicts nothing. One round of the seven is the exception, stating 16 of 17 and naming 16, omitting `GOVERNANCE.md`, and `status` names an omitted file only in that shape, where the table is short by exactly what the counts leave unread and names nothing outside the diff. Treat that as a lead to check rather than a verdict, one round here naming `GOVENANCE.md`, a path no diff carries. Report the state and hand the merge decision to the maintainer.
+- **Counts unequal** - files in the diff have no review at all. Do **not** treat a re-request as the remedy: measured over four pull requests and seven rounds on this repository, every partial round stayed partial at the identical ratio and no round ever recovered, so re-requesting spends a round and changes nothing. Splitting works where it applies and does not apply to a promotion, whose head is `develop`. **The file table in the body does not tell you which file went unread**, and it looks as though it should, which is why it is written down here: measured over 348 review bodies on this repository and 121 on another in this fleet, that table names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, so a table naming every changed file is what a full round carries too and contradicts nothing. One round of the seven is the exception, stating 16 of 17 and naming 16, omitting `GOVERNANCE.md`, and `status` names an omitted file only in that shape, where the table is short by exactly what the counts leave unread and names nothing outside the diff. Treat that as a lead to check rather than a verdict, one round here naming `GOVENANCE.md`, the reviewer's own spelling and a path no diff carries. Report the state and hand the merge decision to the maintainer.
 - **Coverage-shaped and unreadable** - the remedy is to fix the reader, not to read past it. The vetted spellings live in `scripts/pr_review.py` and here, and they stay in step because a case reads them out of this file.
 - **Exempt: a body stating no coverage at all.** 28 of those 332 bodies are an overview and a change list and nothing more. That shape is current, interleaves with the counted one throughout, and one pull request carries both across its two rounds, so treating it as a failure cries wolf on about one review in twelve and teaches an agent to work around the gate. It reads as `coverage=unstated`, never as a pass and never as a failure.
 - **Exempt: a refusal.** It carries no coverage line by design, and the refusal rule above has already classified it. Read it here as well and every refusal grows a spurious second failure on top of the one that names its remedy.

TODO.md

@@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ One pull request, after a survey, deciding whether anything stands between this
   - **Checked** - `develop` at `674a27a` on 2026-08-08, measured over 348 Copilot review bodies on the newest 120 pull requests here and 121 on the fleet's Blog repository, each read against the pull request's own changed-file list rather than against its counts alone.
   - **Settled** - The reviewer does name a file list, and the caveat saying otherwise was wrong. It is a `| File | Description |` table carried by 91 of the 348 bodies, and every table row in the corpus belongs to one of those tables.
   - **Settled** - The table names the unread file on exactly one round of the seven, which states 16 of 17 and names 16, omitting `GOVERNANCE.md`. That round is also the only evidence on record that the unread file is a real file rather than an artifact of counting.
-  - **Settled** - It cannot be read as coverage anywhere else. It names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, including all seven partials on Blog, while one round here states 61 of 62 and names 50, another states 33 of 33 and names 32, and a third names `GOVENANCE.md`, a path no diff carries. A reading identical under both outcomes discriminates neither.
+  - **Settled** - It cannot be read as coverage anywhere else. It names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, including all seven partials on Blog, while one round here states 61 of 62 and names 50, another states 33 of 33 and names 32, and a third names `GOVENANCE.md`, the reviewer's own spelling and a path no diff carries. A reading identical under both outcomes discriminates neither.
   - **Settled** - Three of the four partials here carry their table on the round before a push, describing the diff that push replaced, so the comparison is head-scoped like the counts and reports no table rather than a stale list of unreviewed files.
   - **Open** - Whether a partial round is worth escalating to GitHub at all. One named file on one round is a starting point rather than the pattern an escalation needs.
   - **Settled** - It is durable rather than flaky. Four pull requests and seven rounds (#476, #479, #592, and the #609 promotion), and **every later round repeated the identical ratio**. A re-request has never cleared one, so the remedy the digest first stated was wrong and now says so.

scripts/README.md

@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ The reading fails closed, so a coverage-shaped line that parses to no counts is
 
 The line is matched at its **start** rather than anywhere in the body, since both spellings are structural: across those bodies every coverage statement opens its line, 272 with the reviewer's own name and 32 as the `Review details` bullet, and none sits mid-sentence. A body-wide match reports the pull request that adds this check as a partial round, which is the false positive the suppressed matcher and the refusal matcher have each had once already, and fenced blocks are dropped for the same reason, 131 of the bodies carrying one and this change putting both spellings into the diff a review of it quotes. The cost is named rather than hidden: a wording that moves the statement off the line start reads as no statement rather than as one this cannot parse. The reading is **head-scoped**, unlike a suppressed finding and like a refusal, because a partial round describes one commit's diff and the push that changes that diff raises a round reading the whole of the new one, and where one head carries two rounds through a re-request the worst of them reports, since the one naming files it did not read is the one to answer. A case reads the vetted spellings out of the runbook and hands them to this script's own parser, so the pair stays in step in both directions.
 
-A partial round is reported and handed over rather than retried into. Measured over four pull requests and seven rounds, **every partial stayed partial at the identical ratio and no round ever recovered**, and the diff size does not predict it: fully covered pull requests here run to 33 files and 2,219 changed lines, well past every partial. The stated denominator matches the API's own changed-file count on 103 of 104 pull requests, so the reviewer counts the file and does not read it. Which file that is usually cannot be recovered, and the file table many bodies carry is why it is worth saying "usually" rather than "never": measured over 348 review bodies here and 121 on another repository in this fleet, that table names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, so a table naming every file is exactly what a fully covered round carries too and separates a miscount from a file nobody read exactly never. **One round of the seven is the exception**, stating 16 of 17 and naming 16, omitting `GOVERNANCE.md`, and it is the only evidence on record that the unread file is a real file rather than an artifact of counting. `status` therefore prints what the table says beside the counts and takes no verdict from it. It names the omitted file only where the table is short by exactly what the counts leave unread **and** names nothing outside the diff, one round here naming `GOVENANCE.md`, a path no diff carries, which is enough of a reminder that the table is prose the reviewer writes rather than a list from the API. The comparison is head-scoped like the counts are, so a table from before a push describes the diff that push replaced and reports as no table rather than as a list of unreviewed files, which is the shape three of the four partials here carry. `wait` and `status` therefore report `42` as a state for the maintainer rather than one to re-request into.
+A partial round is reported and handed over rather than retried into. Measured over four pull requests and seven rounds, **every partial stayed partial at the identical ratio and no round ever recovered**, and the diff size does not predict it: fully covered pull requests here run to 33 files and 2,219 changed lines, well past every partial. The stated denominator matches the API's own changed-file count on 103 of 104 pull requests, so the reviewer counts the file and does not read it. Which file that is usually cannot be recovered, and the file table many bodies carry is why it is worth saying "usually" rather than "never": measured over 348 review bodies here and 121 on another repository in this fleet, that table names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, so a table naming every file is exactly what a fully covered round carries too and separates a miscount from a file nobody read exactly never. **One round of the seven is the exception**, stating 16 of 17 and naming 16, omitting `GOVERNANCE.md`, and it is the only evidence on record that the unread file is a real file rather than an artifact of counting. `status` therefore prints what the table says beside the counts and takes no verdict from it. It names the omitted file only where the table is short by exactly what the counts leave unread **and** names nothing outside the diff, one round here naming `GOVENANCE.md`, the reviewer's own spelling and a path no diff carries, which is enough of a reminder that the table is prose the reviewer writes rather than a list from the API. The comparison is head-scoped like the counts are, so a table from before a push describes the diff that push replaced and reports as no table rather than as a list of unreviewed files, which is the shape three of the four partials here carry. `wait` and `status` therefore report `42` as a state for the maintainer rather than one to re-request into.
 
 `status` and `wait` both exit `43` where the reviewer sent a **shape this script has no reader for**, and that outcome outranks every other reading here, because a reader that does not understand the output cannot be believed about what it found in it. Every rule in this script keys on a structural marker, so a marker that changes spelling is a section the reader stops finding and reports as absent. All three failures on record have that exact shape: the suppressed heading reworded and the count went to zero, the suppressed section moved inside another wrapper and the count went to zero again, and the coverage line was never parsed at all. Each reported a clean pass over a review it had misread, and each was found by the maintainer afterwards rather than by the gate. The digest carries `shapes=UNRECOGNIZED`, lists each shape it could not place, and names the remedy in two parts: **file an issue on the hub repository that hosts this script**, quoting the body the shape came from, and leave the merge decision to the maintainer, since an unrecognized shape does not say the pull request is bad, only that nothing here can vouch for the review of it.