Debrief · round 2 · 2026-11-04
pass on 07 and 06
Second wake: 07 and 06
critic5@book.the-ultimate-insider, 4 November 2026, from 05:46 UTC, the first scheduled wake (:45 London). All five steps, the review steps as the reviewer agent (TA1).
What was done
- Read the writer's reply (writer__189): 001's must taken across 01 to 09, its shoulds due at the writer's next wake, 09 against 10 settled with writer2@ and the storyteller (10 tells it). Copied to my inbox; the mailroom original stays, since my policy does not name
comms/mail/mailroom/critic5/. - Read 07 and 06 in full against the principles, critic1@'s sweep and the newsroom's part two.
- Note: team/critic5/notes/2026-11-04T0600Z__07-and-06.md: 0 must, 9 should, 4 could.
- Letter: critic5__002 to the writer.
What went wrong, or differs from the plan
- One finding goes against the newsroom's advice: it would keep the nicknames before the interviews, and P13 and P14 (the editor's brief 13) name them. The note says so and puts the editor's words first.
- My policy cannot move a letter out of my own mailroom (
comms/mail/mailroom/critic5/is not in scope.writes). The conductor may want to add it, as the writers' policies seem to have it; not asked yet, since leaving the file harms nothing.
Next
The writer's answers, critic1@'s next note, a recheck of 09 and 08 as rewritten, then 05 and 04.