G4: fire drills, frozen table plus rows 1 to 3 (#57)

[aien-spark]

Closes #57

Lane G, issue G4: fire drills for delegated work. Stacked on #62 (G3), base lane-g/g3-rebuild-from-records.

Tested commit: c2e8da2 (content d7f0d93, table frozen first in 5039c32 before any drill code). Gates ran against aien-protocols main 4b76f7f.

What is here

• docs/DELEGATED-DAG.md section 5: all 7 drill rows, frozen in their own commit before code. Each row has the setup, the truthful status, the allowed final effect count and its deliberate break.
• tests/workflow_recovery_tests.rs: rows 1 to 3 as tests (the frozen first cut). The authorities are played by a stand-in world: a single-use grant desk that opens one effect intent per grant, an effect ledger with reconcile, receipts, and an effect counter. A kill drops everything AEGIS held in memory. The restart is recovery::rebuild over the stored pointers, and only tasks that come back Ready are run.
• Row 3's idempotence admission map is a test stand-in. AEGIS has no request store yet; the real one belongs with PST1 admission (lane C) and the sovereign-core record (#379).

Checks

Check	Result
DoD 1: frozen table, 7 rows	PASS (5039c32, before code)
DoD 2: rows 1 to 3, effect counter, no duplicate final effect, truthful status	PASS (drill_row1..3)
DoD 2: rows 4 to 7	NOT_RUN: "Later" in the frozen first cut. Row 4 needs PST1 streaming (lane C/G5 bytes), row 5 needs the resume request (G5 item 3), row 6 needs the cancel path against a ledger, row 7 is covered in spirit by existing DAG tests but not as a drill
DoD 3: same event order on two runs	PASS for rows 1 to 3 (each row runs twice; traces compared)
DoD 4: deliberate break per row turns it red	PASS for rows 1 to 3, see below
fmt, check, clippy -D warnings, test (180 passed), anti-slop, zero-disk-secrets	PASS on host
crumb compile then crumb verify .	PASS (OK: 13 crumbs current)
Spark bundle with AEGIS-TEST PASS	NOT_RUN: no Spark commands from this lane; the Spark pipeline is the verdict

Deliberate breaks (each applied alone, then restored)

1. Row 1, "no stored intent pointer means not started" ((None, desk) => desk.clone() replaced with return Ok(Derived::Runnable) in recovery.rs): drill_row1 FAILED, panicked at the stand-in desk refusing to spend the already spent grant (AEGIS tried to run a possibly started effect without reconciling).
2. Row 2, "retry when uncertain" (OPEN/UNRESOLVED mapped to NeedsGrant): drill_row2 FAILED (write came back waiting_for_approval, not uncertain); drill_row1 also FAILED.
3. Row 3, "admission ignores the key": drill_row3 FAILED, repeat must map to the first run, left: "run_repeat", right: "run_g3".

Remaining gap

Rows 4 to 7 as tests; the real admission store; the real authority adapter (sovereign-core#379).

Next dependency

G5 (#58) stacks on this branch.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

⚖️ Sovereign Code Review & Alignment Gate

Greetings @aien-spark. I am AIEN, the automated review gate for the AIENOS project.

Your pull request #63 ("G4: fire drills, frozen table plus rows 1 to 3 (#57)") has undergone automated auditing against the project standards.

✅ Doctrine Diff Audit: PASS

• Telemetry Check: Clean (zero tracking or surveillance hooks detected).
• Sovereign Voice & Formatting Check: Clean (zero em/en dashes, zero banned buzzwords).
• Secrets & Credentials Check: Clean (zero plaintext secrets, hardware vault only).
• Status: Project standards verified.

---

🌿 Sovereign Steward: Contributor Alignment Interview

Greetings @aien-spark. I am AIEN, the automated steward for the AIENOS project.

We welcome all contributors who share our commitment to open collaboration, global humanity, and disciplined systems craftsmanship. We build to expand computing capability, advance open-source intelligence, and share technology freely with the world.

Your pull request #63 ("G4: fire drills, frozen table plus rows 1 to 3 (#57)") is ready for stewardship alignment.

Please respond directly to these four alignment inquiries:

1. Long-Term Mission Alignment:
   This initiative is an enduring engineering commitment to open-source technology for humanity, not a vehicle for short-term hype, social media monetization, or get-rich-quick ventures. How does your contribution support global progress and the resilience of local communities?

2. Telemetry & Integrity:
   Do you certify that this change introduces zero telemetry, zero surveillance, and zero artificial paywalls?

   "I certify that my contribution is submitted in service of human sovereignty and open collaboration. I affirm that this work maintains zero telemetry, contains no surveillance backdoors, and introduces no artificial barriers, and that I offer it under AGPL-3.0-or-later, the license that governs this project. I build so that intelligence is owned by the person who runs it, not rented."

3. Downstream Heritage Preservation:
   Do you acknowledge and agree that any downstream branch, fork, or copy of this work remains under AGPL-3.0-or-later and retains the project's license and attribution notices, as the LICENSE file requires?

4. Craftsmanship & Native Discipline:
   What architectural trade-offs did you make, and how did you verify that this code introduces zero regressions, zero unneeded dependencies, and complies with our pure native compiled standards?

---

Reply to this comment with your affirmation. Once verified against the project standards, I will grant the sovereign-interview-passed clearance. For direct sovereign coordination: Drake Stapleton ([email protected]) and AIEN ([email protected])