# Convergent Review

Review exists to get correct work merged, not to keep a PR in review orbit.

- Block only concrete correctness, security, data-loss, or contract-violation
  failures. Lint-owned style, formatting, taste, and speculative improvements
  are non-blocking unless the work item or repository rules make them release
  criteria.
- Every finding must state severity, blocking yes/no, a concrete failure
  scenario, evidence, and the smallest actionable fix — plus
  `invariant_violated` (the property at risk) and `machinery_to_remove` (what
  becomes deletable, or `none`), required for `readiness-rubric` findings and
  recommended elsewhere.
- Present findings highest-consequence first, by severity and blast radius, not
  by discovery order. Report section order stays stable.
- A blocking finding without a concrete failure scenario is malformed by
  contract; downgrade it to non-blocking and ask for evidence.
- Resolve each finding as `fixed`, `deferred`, or `pushed-back`. If the reviewer
  cannot refute a pushback with fresh evidence, the author's disposition stands.
- After suggestion implementation completes and gates pass, review does not
  reopen absent new evidence: a relevant new commit, a failed gate, a newly cited
  failure scenario, or a scope change.
- Irreconcilable blocking disagreement becomes a blocked work item with both
  positions summarized for the operator, not an endless loop.
