From 1fa681d69d202819969f4db188ca3695b930c61a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lien Chen <screen.leon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:20:04 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] docs(BACKLOG): mark CC-571 done, record PR #539 reference

Status flip missed at merge time -- PR #539 shipped and merged, but
BACKLOG.md's index row and body heading were never flipped from active to
done. This is the fourth time this exact pattern has recurred in one
session (after CC-567, CC-533, CC-015) -- this time by the same agent that
had just fixed the other three, which is its own lesson: the fix has to
happen inside the PR before merge, not as a mental note for after.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0177ds9nxEMtsh3bwpBxNHYx
---
 BACKLOG.md | 17 +++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/BACKLOG.md b/BACKLOG.md
index 9d210e28..6dd09c2f 100644
--- a/BACKLOG.md
+++ b/BACKLOG.md
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ CC-001/CC-002 were consumed by PR #24 fix bundle inline, with no standalone entr
 | CC-568 | 🟢 someday | `/mem-distill` Case→Strategy 機械式提升：對 `episodes.jsonl` 既有結構化欄位做 count/cluster 門檻判定，取代逐次主觀「感覺像 pattern」的判斷；依賴 [[CC-567]] 的 outcome 證據決定是否值得做（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P2 | retrieval |
 | CC-569 | 🟢 someday | `pmctl task` / `context pack` 擴充 working-memory 敘事欄位（`selected_memories`／`rejected_paths`／`blockers`／`next_action`）：延伸既有 schema，不新建第二個「現在在幹嘛」真相來源；依賴 [[CC-567]] 證明有價值後再排（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P2 | design |
 | CC-570 | 🟢 someday | Fact/Case/Strategy `memory_function`／`memory_subtype` metadata 分類法：先蒐集 [[CC-567]] 的 applied/outcome 證據，再決定值不值得建分類機制——不憑直覺先建立稅務式標籤（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論；外部文章優先序建議相反，本 repo 刻意反過來） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P3 | retrieval |
-| CC-571 | 🔵 active | `_ctx_fts_rebuild`／`_ctx_index_file` 共用的 sqlite atomic-script 缺口：DROP+CREATE+INSERT 未加 `-bail`（實測 sqlite3 CLI 預設不會在錯誤時中止，單靠 BEGIN/COMMIT 不足）、呼叫端不檢查回傳值、`_ctx_index_file` 還有第三個獨立 bug（`rm -f` 蓋掉 sqlite3 真實 exit code）；`/simplify` altitude review 抓到手足函式同缺陷，範圍已擴大涵蓋兩者（[[CC-548]] spike 的 Open risks 側面發現，非本票 tokenizer 範圍） | memory/ops | 2026-08-26 | — | P2 | hygiene |
+| CC-571 | ✅ done | `_ctx_fts_rebuild`／`_ctx_index_file` 共用的 sqlite atomic-script 缺口：DROP+CREATE+INSERT 未加 `-bail`（實測 sqlite3 CLI 預設不會在錯誤時中止，單靠 BEGIN/COMMIT 不足）、呼叫端不檢查回傳值、`_ctx_index_file` 還有第三個獨立 bug（`rm -f` 蓋掉 sqlite3 真實 exit code）；`/simplify` altitude review 抓到手足函式同缺陷，範圍已擴大涵蓋兩者（[[CC-548]] spike 的 Open risks 側面發現，非本票 tokenizer 範圍） | memory/ops | 2026-08-26 | pr:#539 | P2 | hygiene |
 
 ---
 
@@ -3335,7 +3335,7 @@ machinery，是憑一篇文章的直覺蓋機制，屬於本 repo 已經吃過
 
 ---
 
-## CC-571 — sqlite atomic-script 缺口：`_ctx_fts_rebuild`／`_ctx_index_file` 🔵 active
+## CC-571 — sqlite atomic-script 缺口：`_ctx_fts_rebuild`／`_ctx_index_file`
 
 **Problem**: `runtime/lib/pmctl-context.sh` 的 `_ctx_fts_rebuild()` 對
 `content_fts` 做 `DROP TABLE` → `CREATE VIRTUAL TABLE` → 兩個 `INSERT ... SELECT`，
@@ -3393,4 +3393,17 @@ best-effort 加速層，宣稱「re-indexed」等於說謊）。新增對應 reg
 `runtime/lib/memory.sh` 的 `memory_usage_commit`（既有的 `-bail` atomic-script
 先例，本票的 helper 命名與理由都直接引用它，而非各自重新推導）。
 
+**Update 2026-08-26（done，pr:#539）**：pr-gate 5 輪後 GO（critic／qa-tester／
+architecture-reviewer／security-reviewer 全數 approve）。前兩輪是真實發現並已修正：
+round 1 critic-F001——stderr 有印降級訊息，但 stdout 的成功摘要行本身仍是無條件
+「N indexed, M skipped」，對只看 stdout／exit code 的呼叫端是矛盾摘要，改成把降級
+狀態直接併入 stdout 摘要行本身；round 2 critic-F001——首次建置索引失敗時（rebuild
+前 `content_fts` 根本不存在），訊息卻說「現有索引維持」，改為依 rebuild 前是否已有
+`content_fts` 分支措辭。中間另有 3 輪是 gate 執行環境本身的 synthesis 協定不穩定
+（`apply_patch` 在同一份 result 檔案上多次操作互相衝突、`findings_union`/
+`disagreement` 結構不一致），與程式碼無關，重跑收斂。`tests/bin/run-all-tests.sh`
+104 passed 0 failed。狀態旗標本次於 main 更新後立即補記——同一 session 已因此類
+漏更新撞過三次（CC-567／CC-533／CC-015），這次差點又漏，補上教訓：**合併前**就該
+在 PR 裡帶上狀態翻轉，合併後才想起來永遠比合併前想起來更容易忘記。
+
 ---

From cae82de8717a590c7cc7705dee7366727d61c7f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lien Chen <screen.leon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:06:10 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 2/7] fix(CC-572): pr-gate synthesis retry removes (not
 truncates) the result path

Diagnosed from repeated production protocol failures during the CC-571
gate saga: apply_patch failures ("invalid patch: multiple operations
target <file>", "invalid hunk", "Failed to find expected lines") kept
recurring on the synthesis correction retry, in both sequential and
parallel mode.

Root cause: the reviewer-protocol retry (which never showed this failure)
always writes to a brand-new path (reviewer-<name>-<ts>-retry1.md) --
always an unambiguous "Add File" for whatever patch tool the executor
uses. Both synthesis retries instead re-dispatch to the SAME fixed
$OUTPUT_FILE path. The sequential retry already truncated it
(`: > "$OUTPUT_FILE"`) before this fix, and STILL hit the identical
failure -- confirmed by direct trace inspection that a path which still
EXISTS on disk, even at 0 bytes, can lead the executor's patch tool to
choose an "Update File" operation (which locates existing content to
edit) instead of "Add File". An update against empty/rewritten content
then fails outright, since there's no content to locate -- a hard
patch-tool failure unrelated to the actual synthesis content. The
parallel retry didn't even truncate; it left the first attempt's full
content in place.

Fixed by removing the path entirely (not truncating it) before both
retries, via a new shared `gate_clear_retry_target` helper next to
`gate_dispatch_command`. This forces an unambiguous "Add File" the same
way the already-reliable reviewer-retry path's brand-new filename does.

Added a test-only capture hook (CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR) that
records, at the very start of each synthesis dispatch, whether the result
path exists on disk at that instant -- and two regression tests (one per
mode) asserting the first dispatch sees "exists" (reviewer content already
written) and the retry sees "absent". All existing synthesis-protocol
(14) and sequential-protocol (4) tests still pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0177ds9nxEMtsh3bwpBxNHYx
---
 BACKLOG.md                  | 42 +++++++++++++++++++
 runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh      | 35 ++++++++++++++--
 tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/BACKLOG.md b/BACKLOG.md
index 6dd09c2f..083560f8 100644
--- a/BACKLOG.md
+++ b/BACKLOG.md
@@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ CC-001/CC-002 were consumed by PR #24 fix bundle inline, with no standalone entr
 | CC-569 | 🟢 someday | `pmctl task` / `context pack` 擴充 working-memory 敘事欄位（`selected_memories`／`rejected_paths`／`blockers`／`next_action`）：延伸既有 schema，不新建第二個「現在在幹嘛」真相來源；依賴 [[CC-567]] 證明有價值後再排（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P2 | design |
 | CC-570 | 🟢 someday | Fact/Case/Strategy `memory_function`／`memory_subtype` metadata 分類法：先蒐集 [[CC-567]] 的 applied/outcome 證據，再決定值不值得建分類機制——不憑直覺先建立稅務式標籤（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論；外部文章優先序建議相反，本 repo 刻意反過來） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P3 | retrieval |
 | CC-571 | ✅ done | `_ctx_fts_rebuild`／`_ctx_index_file` 共用的 sqlite atomic-script 缺口：DROP+CREATE+INSERT 未加 `-bail`（實測 sqlite3 CLI 預設不會在錯誤時中止，單靠 BEGIN/COMMIT 不足）、呼叫端不檢查回傳值、`_ctx_index_file` 還有第三個獨立 bug（`rm -f` 蓋掉 sqlite3 真實 exit code）；`/simplify` altitude review 抓到手足函式同缺陷，範圍已擴大涵蓋兩者（[[CC-548]] spike 的 Open risks 側面發現，非本票 tokenizer 範圍） | memory/ops | 2026-08-26 | pr:#539 | P2 | hygiene |
+| CC-572 | 🔵 active | pr-gate synthesis retry（sequential／parallel 兩條路徑）留下已存在但 0 bytes 的 `$OUTPUT_FILE`，executor 的 patch 工具仍可能選擇 Update File 而非 Add File 語意，對空內容找不到 context line 而崩潰（`apply_patch verification failed`）；CC-571 gate saga 連續四輪協定失敗實測發現（2026-08-26） | gate/ops | 2026-08-26 | — | P2 | hygiene |
 
 ---
 
@@ -3407,3 +3408,44 @@ round 1 critic-F001——stderr 有印降級訊息，但 stdout 的成功摘要
 在 PR 裡帶上狀態翻轉，合併後才想起來永遠比合併前想起來更容易忘記。
 
 ---
+
+## CC-572 — pr-gate synthesis 重試留下空但存在的 result 檔案，patch 工具語意混淆 🔵 active
+
+**Problem**: CC-571 的 pr-gate saga 連續遇到 4 輪協定失敗，其中兩類錯誤反覆出現：
+`apply_patch verification failed: invalid patch: multiple operations target <file>`
+與 `Failed to find expected lines in <file>: ...`。追查後發現：sequential 模式的
+synthesis 重試（`runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh` 約 line 2748）在重試前用 `: > "$OUTPUT_FILE"`
+把結果檔案**清空但保留路徑存在**；parallel 模式的 synthesis 重試（約 line 3600 附近的
+迴圈）則完全沒有清空或移除，重試時 `$OUTPUT_FILE` 仍是第一次嘗試的完整內容。兩者都
+讓 executor 的 patch 工具面對一個「路徑存在」的檔案，可能因此選擇 `Update File`
+（需要定位既有內容做編輯）而非 `Add File`（單純新建）語意——對 0 bytes 或即將整份
+重寫的檔案，`Update File` 語意本質上找不到可定位的 context line，因而崩潰。
+
+**Why**: reviewer-protocol 的重試路徑（同檔案內，寫到全新的
+`reviewer-<name>-<ts>-retry1.md` 路徑）從未出現過這個問題——因為那個路徑保證是全新
+的，patch 工具沒有選錯語意的空間。Synthesis 的兩條重試路徑都固定用同一個
+`$OUTPUT_FILE`（這個路徑本身是使用者看得到的 canonical gate 結果路徑，不能像
+reviewer 重試一樣改路徑），只能改成每次重試前把該路徑**整個移除**（而非清空），
+逼 patch 工具只能選擇 `Add File`。
+
+**Requirement**:
+1. sequential synthesis 重試（line ~2748）改用 `rm -f "$OUTPUT_FILE"` 取代
+   `: > "$OUTPUT_FILE"`；retry brief 文字同步更新（不再說「已清空」，改說「已移除」）。
+2. parallel synthesis 重試（line ~3600 附近迴圈）在附加 `correction_retry:` 之後、
+   重新 dispatch 之前，新增 `rm -f "$OUTPUT_FILE"`。
+3. Regression fixtures 涵蓋兩條路徑：以既有的 `CODEX_GATE_STUB_SYNTHESIS_PROTOCOL_MUTATION`
+   測試 harness 驗證重試發生時 `$OUTPUT_FILE` 在第二次 dispatch **開始前**確實不存在
+   （而非僅清空），且既有 13 個 synthesis-protocol 測試全數維持綠燈（stub 的
+   fallback 讀取路徑 `document_source="$brief_file"` 本就存在，理論上不受影響，
+   需要實測驗證）。
+
+**Non-goals**: 不改變 synthesis 重試次數（維持 1 次，不重新開放 CC-544 已被否決的
+「重試把失敗變成通過」爭議——本票的重試機制本來就誠實回報協定失敗，不受影響）；
+不修改 reviewer-protocol 既有的重試機制（已經是正確模式，不需要改）；不嘗試修正
+codex 自己的 apply_patch 工具實作（不在本 repo 控制範圍）。
+
+**Cross-link**: [[CC-571]]（gate saga 實測發現本問題的來源）。
+
+**Update 2026-08-26（實作中）**：兩處已改為 `rm -f`，並更新對應說明文字。
+
+---
diff --git a/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh b/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
index e383de7b..2a290405 100755
--- a/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
+++ b/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
@@ -804,6 +804,23 @@ gate_dispatch_command() {
   fi
 }
 
+# CC-572: clear a fixed result path before a corrective retry re-dispatches
+# to it. Shared by the sequential and parallel synthesis retry loops (each
+# retries once, to the SAME $OUTPUT_FILE path, unlike the reviewer-protocol
+# retry which always writes to a brand-new path).
+#
+# Removing the path (not truncating it) matters: observed in production,
+# an executor's patch tool can choose an "Update File" operation (which
+# locates existing content to edit) against a path that still EXISTS on
+# disk, even truncated to 0 bytes -- and that operation then fails
+# ("Failed to find expected lines", "invalid patch: multiple operations
+# target <file>") because there is no content to locate. Only removing the
+# path forces an unambiguous "Add File" the same way a brand-new path
+# would, matching the reviewer-retry shape's already-reliable behavior.
+gate_clear_retry_target() {
+  rm -f "$1"
+}
+
 # Every supported executor now dispatches an INDEPENDENT subprocess (codex `codex
 # exec`, claude headless `claude --print`) and writes the result in-process, which
 # the gate then integrity-checks. This flag is the seam where a future
@@ -2742,10 +2759,11 @@ BRIEF_EOF
   for _seq_attempt in 1 2; do
   if [[ "$_seq_attempt" -eq 2 ]]; then
     # The brief has the executor CREATE the file on the first reviewer and
-    # APPEND for the rest, so a retry must start from an empty document:
+    # APPEND for the rest, so a retry must start from a clean slate:
     # appending to a rejected, half-ordered one compounds the defect the
-    # retry exists to fix.
-    : > "$OUTPUT_FILE"
+    # retry exists to fix. See gate_clear_retry_target for why this removes
+    # the path rather than truncating it (CC-572).
+    gate_clear_retry_target "$OUTPUT_FILE"
     # Same trust boundary as the parallel retry: the reason quotes ids read
     # from the rejected artifact, so flatten newlines and bound the length
     # before it becomes a YAML block scalar in a privileged brief.
@@ -2753,7 +2771,7 @@ BRIEF_EOF
     _seq_reason_line="${_seq_reason_line//$'\r'/ }"
     [[ "${#_seq_reason_line}" -le 800 ]] \
       || _seq_reason_line="${_seq_reason_line:0:800}~"
-    printf '\ncorrection_retry: |\n  The first attempt was REJECTED for exactly this reason:\n\n    %s\n\n  %s has been emptied. Rebuild it completely, in the required section\n  order, from the same reviewer evidence -- fix that specific defect and do\n  not change any other section to compensate.\n' \
+    printf '\ncorrection_retry: |\n  The first attempt was REJECTED for exactly this reason:\n\n    %s\n\n  %s has been removed. Rebuild it completely from scratch, in the\n  required section order, from the same reviewer evidence -- fix that\n  specific defect and do not change any other section to compensate.\n' \
       "$_seq_reason_line" "$OUTPUT_FILE" >> "$BRIEF_FILE"
     say '  [sequential] retrying once after %s.\n' "$_seq_reason"
   fi
@@ -3619,6 +3637,15 @@ SBRIEF_P2
         || _synthesis_reason_line="${_synthesis_reason_line:0:800}~"
       printf '\ncorrection_retry: |\n  The first synthesis attempt was REJECTED for exactly this reason:\n\n    %s\n\n  Fix that specific defect. Copied coverage/inventory/test-gap fields are\n  restored by the shell from the embedded reviewer_result_v1 documents; do not\n  retype them. Rebuild grouping, disagreement, confirmation, and seed fields\n  from those same documents -- do not change any other section to compensate.\n' \
         "$_synthesis_reason_line" >> "$SYNTHESIS_BRIEF"
+      # Unlike the reviewer-protocol retry above (which writes to a
+      # brand-new path, e.g. reviewer-<name>-<ts>-retry1.md), the synthesis
+      # retry re-dispatches to the SAME fixed $OUTPUT_FILE path. See
+      # gate_clear_retry_target for why this removes the path rather than
+      # leaving attempt 1's content in place (CC-572). The brief already
+      # tells the model to rebuild every field fresh from the embedded
+      # reviewer context, so nothing here depends on attempt 1's on-disk
+      # content surviving into attempt 2.
+      gate_clear_retry_target "$OUTPUT_FILE"
     fi
     say '  [synthesis attempt %d] running PM consolidation...\n' "$_synthesis_attempt"
     SYNTHESIS_DISPATCH_CMD="$(gate_dispatch_command "$EXECUTOR" "$SYNTHESIS_BRIEF" "$WORK_DIR" "$DISPATCH_MODEL" "$DISPATCH_SANDBOX" "$DISPATCH_APPROVAL" "$TIMEOUT" "$DISPATCH_ISOLATION" "$DISPATCH_EFFORT")" || exit 2
diff --git a/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh b/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
index 5096e7ef..230ee567 100755
--- a/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
+++ b/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
@@ -120,6 +120,27 @@ done
 reviewer_name="$(awk '$1 == "Reviewer:" { print $2; exit }' "$brief_file")"
 : "${reviewer_name:=stub-reviewer}"
 
+# CC-572: record whether the synthesis/sequential result path exists on disk
+# at the very start of THIS dispatch (before this stub or anything else in
+# this invocation touches it) -- the property a synthesis retry must uphold
+# is that the path is gone (not just empty) before the retry's own write
+# begins. Must run before any other block below that might create the file.
+if [[ -n "${CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR:-}" ]] \
+    && { [[ "$brief_file" == *-synthesis.md ]] || grep -q '^goal: Sequential ' "$brief_file"; }; then
+  _cc572_output_path=$(grep -o '\- new:.*' "$brief_file" | head -1 | awk '{print $NF}')
+  mkdir -p "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR"
+  # Each gate run's synthesis dispatches at most twice (initial + one
+  # retry), so a fixed first/second pair of files is simpler than a
+  # counted/globbed sequence for a caller that only ever expects two checks.
+  _cc572_state="exists"
+  [[ -n "$_cc572_output_path" && -e "$_cc572_output_path" ]] || _cc572_state="absent"
+  if [[ ! -e "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR/first" ]]; then
+    printf '%s\n' "$_cc572_state" > "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR/first"
+  else
+    printf '%s\n' "$_cc572_state" > "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR/second"
+  fi
+fi
+
 # CC-541: capture whatever QA_RULES_DIR value (if any) this dispatch inherited,
 # so tests can assert pr-gate.sh's host-side resolution reached the reviewer
 # subprocess env without needing a real codex model to interpret it.
@@ -11887,6 +11908,63 @@ test_parallel_synthesis_retry_brief_bounds_long_reason() {
   pass "$name"
 }
 
+# Behavior (CC-572): a synthesis retry (either mode) must remove
+# $OUTPUT_FILE before re-dispatching, not just leave the first attempt's
+# content sitting on disk. Observed in production: an executor's patch tool
+# can choose an "Update File" operation against a path that still exists
+# (even truncated to empty), and that operation then fails outright because
+# there is no matching content to locate -- a hard tool failure unrelated to
+# the actual synthesis content. Only full removal forces an unambiguous
+# "Add File" the same way a brand-new path would.
+# Steps: force a first-attempt synthesis failure (existing malformed-seed
+# mutation); the CC-572 capture hook in the stub records, at the very start
+# of EACH synthesis dispatch (before the stub or anything else writes to the
+# path), whether $OUTPUT_FILE existed at that instant. Assert the first
+# check says "exists" (the reviewer-append step already wrote content before
+# synthesis attempt 1 runs) and the second (retry) check says "absent".
+# Shared by both modes because the property under test -- and the fixture
+# setup to exercise it -- is identical; only --mode differs. Sequential and
+# parallel dispatch through separately-authored retry loops in
+# runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh (the sequential one used to truncate the file
+# rather than remove it), so both are exercised as their own named result.
+_test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
+  local mode="$1" test_prefix="$2"
+  local name="${test_prefix}/retry-removes-output-file-before-redispatch"
+  should_run "$name" || return 0
+  local dir="$TMP_ROOT/$name" home="$TMP_ROOT/$name/home"
+  local repo="$TMP_ROOT/$name/repo" runner="$TMP_ROOT/$name/runner"
+  local out="$TMP_ROOT/$name/out" err="$TMP_ROOT/$name/err" code=0
+  local checks="$TMP_ROOT/$name/checks"
+  mkdir -p "$dir" "$checks"
+  create_runner "$runner"
+  create_agents "$home" critic qa-tester
+  create_repo "$repo" docs
+  set +e
+  CODEX_GATE_STUB_SYNTHESIS_PROTOCOL_MUTATION=malformed-seed \
+    CODEX_GATE_STUB_SYNTHESIS_PROTOCOL_MUTATION_ONLY_FIRST=1 \
+    CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR="$checks" \
+    run_gate "$home" "$runner" "$repo" "$out" "$err" \
+      --base main --reviewers critic,qa-tester --mode "$mode"
+  code=$?
+  set -e
+  [[ "$code" -eq 0 ]] || { fail "$name" "did not recover: code=$code $(tail -n 5 "$err" 2>/dev/null)"; return; }
+  [[ -f "$checks/second" ]] || {
+    fail "$name" "second dispatch's existence check was not captured: $(find "$checks" -maxdepth 1 -printf '%P ' 2>/dev/null)"
+    return
+  }
+  assert_file_contains "$name" "$checks/first" "exists" || return
+  assert_file_contains "$name" "$checks/second" "absent" || return
+  pass "$name"
+}
+
+test_parallel_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
+  _test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch parallel synthesis-protocol
+}
+
+test_sequential_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
+  _test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch sequential sequential-protocol
+}
+
 # Behavior: a stale subject binding is NOT retried in sequential mode.
 # Steps: bind the synthesis to a different scope digest, then assert the gate
 # refuses the retry and says so.
@@ -12985,6 +13063,8 @@ run_test test_synthesis_protocol_diagnostics_name_the_defect
 run_test test_synthesis_protocol_diagnostics_neutralize_injected_ids
 run_test test_parallel_synthesis_retry_brief_carries_reason
 run_test test_parallel_synthesis_retry_brief_bounds_long_reason
+run_test test_parallel_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch
+run_test test_sequential_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch
 run_test test_sequential_protocol_recovers_on_retry
 run_test test_sequential_protocol_refuses_stale_subject_retry
 run_test test_sequential_retry_brief_bounds_long_reason

From 0fbd0d8d25daae4801fa4e6a16fd6440657210fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lien Chen <screen.leon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:26:31 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 3/7] fix(CC-572): add missing test docstrings on the two mode
 wrappers

lint-test-docstrings requires each test_* function to carry its own
'# Behavior:' marker directly above its declaration -- the shared helper's
docstring didn't satisfy that for the two thin per-mode wrappers, which
caused tests/bin/run-all-tests.sh to fail at phase 0 and skip 99 suites.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0177ds9nxEMtsh3bwpBxNHYx
---
 tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh b/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
index 230ee567..dfc4d582 100755
--- a/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
+++ b/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
@@ -11957,10 +11957,12 @@ _test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
   pass "$name"
 }
 
+# Behavior: parallel-mode wrapper for the shared CC-572 check above.
 test_parallel_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
   _test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch parallel synthesis-protocol
 }
 
+# Behavior: sequential-mode wrapper for the shared CC-572 check above.
 test_sequential_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
   _test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch sequential sequential-protocol
 }

From d273adc10be03d1a50d41740a99e5dd8e52f687c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lien Chen <screen.leon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:26:02 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 4/7] docs(BACKLOG): mark CC-572 done in the same PR that ships
 it

Following the lesson from CC-524/CC-567/CC-533/CC-015/CC-571: flip the
status inside the shipping PR, not as a follow-up after merge.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0177ds9nxEMtsh3bwpBxNHYx
---
 BACKLOG.md | 18 +++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/BACKLOG.md b/BACKLOG.md
index 083560f8..afebf0cd 100644
--- a/BACKLOG.md
+++ b/BACKLOG.md
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ CC-001/CC-002 were consumed by PR #24 fix bundle inline, with no standalone entr
 | CC-569 | 🟢 someday | `pmctl task` / `context pack` 擴充 working-memory 敘事欄位（`selected_memories`／`rejected_paths`／`blockers`／`next_action`）：延伸既有 schema，不新建第二個「現在在幹嘛」真相來源；依賴 [[CC-567]] 證明有價值後再排（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P2 | design |
 | CC-570 | 🟢 someday | Fact/Case/Strategy `memory_function`／`memory_subtype` metadata 分類法：先蒐集 [[CC-567]] 的 applied/outcome 證據，再決定值不值得建分類機制——不憑直覺先建立稅務式標籤（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論；外部文章優先序建議相反，本 repo 刻意反過來） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P3 | retrieval |
 | CC-571 | ✅ done | `_ctx_fts_rebuild`／`_ctx_index_file` 共用的 sqlite atomic-script 缺口：DROP+CREATE+INSERT 未加 `-bail`（實測 sqlite3 CLI 預設不會在錯誤時中止，單靠 BEGIN/COMMIT 不足）、呼叫端不檢查回傳值、`_ctx_index_file` 還有第三個獨立 bug（`rm -f` 蓋掉 sqlite3 真實 exit code）；`/simplify` altitude review 抓到手足函式同缺陷，範圍已擴大涵蓋兩者（[[CC-548]] spike 的 Open risks 側面發現，非本票 tokenizer 範圍） | memory/ops | 2026-08-26 | pr:#539 | P2 | hygiene |
-| CC-572 | 🔵 active | pr-gate synthesis retry（sequential／parallel 兩條路徑）留下已存在但 0 bytes 的 `$OUTPUT_FILE`，executor 的 patch 工具仍可能選擇 Update File 而非 Add File 語意，對空內容找不到 context line 而崩潰（`apply_patch verification failed`）；CC-571 gate saga 連續四輪協定失敗實測發現（2026-08-26） | gate/ops | 2026-08-26 | — | P2 | hygiene |
+| CC-572 | ✅ done | pr-gate synthesis retry（sequential／parallel 兩條路徑）留下已存在但 0 bytes 的 `$OUTPUT_FILE`，executor 的 patch 工具仍可能選擇 Update File 而非 Add File 語意，對空內容找不到 context line 而崩潰（`apply_patch verification failed`）；CC-571 gate saga 連續四輪協定失敗實測發現（2026-08-26） | gate/ops | 2026-08-26 | — | P2 | hygiene |
 
 ---
 
@@ -3409,7 +3409,7 @@ round 1 critic-F001——stderr 有印降級訊息，但 stdout 的成功摘要
 
 ---
 
-## CC-572 — pr-gate synthesis 重試留下空但存在的 result 檔案，patch 工具語意混淆 🔵 active
+## CC-572 — pr-gate synthesis 重試留下空但存在的 result 檔案，patch 工具語意混淆
 
 **Problem**: CC-571 的 pr-gate saga 連續遇到 4 輪協定失敗，其中兩類錯誤反覆出現：
 `apply_patch verification failed: invalid patch: multiple operations target <file>`
@@ -3446,6 +3446,18 @@ codex 自己的 apply_patch 工具實作（不在本 repo 控制範圍）。
 
 **Cross-link**: [[CC-571]]（gate saga 實測發現本問題的來源）。
 
-**Update 2026-08-26（實作中）**：兩處已改為 `rm -f`，並更新對應說明文字。
+**Update 2026-08-26（done）**：兩處 synthesis 重試皆改用新抽出的共用
+`gate_clear_retry_target()`（放在 `gate_dispatch_command` 旁邊，`/simplify` 三個
+角度的 review 都指向同一個修法：抽共用 helper，消除重複的 `rm -f` 與重複的說明
+文字）。新增測試專用 capture hook（`CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR`），
+在每次 synthesis dispatch 開始的瞬間記錄 `$OUTPUT_FILE` 是否存在；兩個對應
+regression test（sequential／parallel 各一，共用同一參數化 helper）斷言第一次
+dispatch 看到「存在」、重試時看到「不存在」。pr-gate 首輪即 GO（四位 reviewer
+全數 approve，沒有觸發 synthesis retry，尚未在真實情境驗證修復——但 mechanism
+本身已用直接 trace 比對過往失敗 log 的根因，且迴歸測試已白箱驗證行為正確）。
+過程中一度讓 `tests/bin/run-all-tests.sh` 在 phase 0 卡住、99 個套件被跳過——
+原因是兩個新測試函式沒有各自的 `# Behavior:` docstring（`lint-test-docstrings`
+要求每個 `test_*` 函式正上方都要有，不能只寫在共用 helper 上），已補上。
+`tests/bin/run-all-tests.sh` 104 passed 0 failed。
 
 ---

From d7c48fa878389b123b70b754c71e5d7384cd4e3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lien Chen <screen.leon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:26:41 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 5/7] docs(BACKLOG): record PR #541 reference for CC-572

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0177ds9nxEMtsh3bwpBxNHYx
---
 BACKLOG.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/BACKLOG.md b/BACKLOG.md
index afebf0cd..7e8bbbd4 100644
--- a/BACKLOG.md
+++ b/BACKLOG.md
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ CC-001/CC-002 were consumed by PR #24 fix bundle inline, with no standalone entr
 | CC-569 | 🟢 someday | `pmctl task` / `context pack` 擴充 working-memory 敘事欄位（`selected_memories`／`rejected_paths`／`blockers`／`next_action`）：延伸既有 schema，不新建第二個「現在在幹嘛」真相來源；依賴 [[CC-567]] 證明有價值後再排（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P2 | design |
 | CC-570 | 🟢 someday | Fact/Case/Strategy `memory_function`／`memory_subtype` metadata 分類法：先蒐集 [[CC-567]] 的 applied/outcome 證據，再決定值不值得建分類機制——不憑直覺先建立稅務式標籤（2026-08-25 memory 架構設計討論；外部文章優先序建議相反，本 repo 刻意反過來） | memory/DX | 2026-08-25 | — | P3 | retrieval |
 | CC-571 | ✅ done | `_ctx_fts_rebuild`／`_ctx_index_file` 共用的 sqlite atomic-script 缺口：DROP+CREATE+INSERT 未加 `-bail`（實測 sqlite3 CLI 預設不會在錯誤時中止，單靠 BEGIN/COMMIT 不足）、呼叫端不檢查回傳值、`_ctx_index_file` 還有第三個獨立 bug（`rm -f` 蓋掉 sqlite3 真實 exit code）；`/simplify` altitude review 抓到手足函式同缺陷，範圍已擴大涵蓋兩者（[[CC-548]] spike 的 Open risks 側面發現，非本票 tokenizer 範圍） | memory/ops | 2026-08-26 | pr:#539 | P2 | hygiene |
-| CC-572 | ✅ done | pr-gate synthesis retry（sequential／parallel 兩條路徑）留下已存在但 0 bytes 的 `$OUTPUT_FILE`，executor 的 patch 工具仍可能選擇 Update File 而非 Add File 語意，對空內容找不到 context line 而崩潰（`apply_patch verification failed`）；CC-571 gate saga 連續四輪協定失敗實測發現（2026-08-26） | gate/ops | 2026-08-26 | — | P2 | hygiene |
+| CC-572 | ✅ done | pr-gate synthesis retry（sequential／parallel 兩條路徑）留下已存在但 0 bytes 的 `$OUTPUT_FILE`，executor 的 patch 工具仍可能選擇 Update File 而非 Add File 語意，對空內容找不到 context line 而崩潰（`apply_patch verification failed`）；CC-571 gate saga 連續四輪協定失敗實測發現（2026-08-26） | gate/ops | 2026-08-26 | pr:#541 | P2 | hygiene |
 
 ---
 

From acf663021762c86a402083e8f7e0bbac1f419dfd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lien Chen <screen.leon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:41:09 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 6/7] docs(CC-572): trim comments/ticket text to why, not what

gate_clear_retry_target's own comment restated what the function does
(the name already says that); trimmed to keep only the why (the
Update-vs-Add-File patch-tool failure mode). BACKLOG.md's Requirement/
Update sections similarly dropped line-number-level implementation detail
that duplicates the code and would go stale as soon as the code moves --
kept only the outcome and the reasoning.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0177ds9nxEMtsh3bwpBxNHYx
---
 BACKLOG.md             | 31 +++++++++----------------------
 runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh | 21 ++++++++-------------
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

diff --git a/BACKLOG.md b/BACKLOG.md
index 7e8bbbd4..e9043132 100644
--- a/BACKLOG.md
+++ b/BACKLOG.md
@@ -3429,15 +3429,11 @@ reviewer 重試一樣改路徑），只能改成每次重試前把該路徑**整
 逼 patch 工具只能選擇 `Add File`。
 
 **Requirement**:
-1. sequential synthesis 重試（line ~2748）改用 `rm -f "$OUTPUT_FILE"` 取代
-   `: > "$OUTPUT_FILE"`；retry brief 文字同步更新（不再說「已清空」，改說「已移除」）。
-2. parallel synthesis 重試（line ~3600 附近迴圈）在附加 `correction_retry:` 之後、
-   重新 dispatch 之前，新增 `rm -f "$OUTPUT_FILE"`。
-3. Regression fixtures 涵蓋兩條路徑：以既有的 `CODEX_GATE_STUB_SYNTHESIS_PROTOCOL_MUTATION`
-   測試 harness 驗證重試發生時 `$OUTPUT_FILE` 在第二次 dispatch **開始前**確實不存在
-   （而非僅清空），且既有 13 個 synthesis-protocol 測試全數維持綠燈（stub 的
-   fallback 讀取路徑 `document_source="$brief_file"` 本就存在，理論上不受影響，
-   需要實測驗證）。
+1. 兩條 synthesis 重試路徑（sequential／parallel）在重新 dispatch 前，都必須讓
+   `$OUTPUT_FILE` 這個路徑真正不存在（而非僅清空內容），逼 patch 工具走
+   `Add File` 而非 `Update File`。
+2. Regression fixtures 驗證重試發生時 `$OUTPUT_FILE` 在第二次 dispatch **開始前**
+   確實不存在，且既有 synthesis-protocol 測試全數維持綠燈。
 
 **Non-goals**: 不改變 synthesis 重試次數（維持 1 次，不重新開放 CC-544 已被否決的
 「重試把失敗變成通過」爭議——本票的重試機制本來就誠實回報協定失敗，不受影響）；
@@ -3446,18 +3442,9 @@ codex 自己的 apply_patch 工具實作（不在本 repo 控制範圍）。
 
 **Cross-link**: [[CC-571]]（gate saga 實測發現本問題的來源）。
 
-**Update 2026-08-26（done）**：兩處 synthesis 重試皆改用新抽出的共用
-`gate_clear_retry_target()`（放在 `gate_dispatch_command` 旁邊，`/simplify` 三個
-角度的 review 都指向同一個修法：抽共用 helper，消除重複的 `rm -f` 與重複的說明
-文字）。新增測試專用 capture hook（`CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR`），
-在每次 synthesis dispatch 開始的瞬間記錄 `$OUTPUT_FILE` 是否存在；兩個對應
-regression test（sequential／parallel 各一，共用同一參數化 helper）斷言第一次
-dispatch 看到「存在」、重試時看到「不存在」。pr-gate 首輪即 GO（四位 reviewer
-全數 approve，沒有觸發 synthesis retry，尚未在真實情境驗證修復——但 mechanism
-本身已用直接 trace 比對過往失敗 log 的根因，且迴歸測試已白箱驗證行為正確）。
-過程中一度讓 `tests/bin/run-all-tests.sh` 在 phase 0 卡住、99 個套件被跳過——
-原因是兩個新測試函式沒有各自的 `# Behavior:` docstring（`lint-test-docstrings`
-要求每個 `test_*` 函式正上方都要有，不能只寫在共用 helper 上），已補上。
-`tests/bin/run-all-tests.sh` 104 passed 0 failed。
+**Update 2026-08-26（done，pr:#541）**：兩條路徑都已修好，新增迴歸測試直接斷言
+重試發生時該路徑真的不存在（而非僅清空）。pr-gate 首輪 GO（未在該次 gate run
+自身觸發 synthesis retry，修復是靠直接比對過往失敗 log 的根因＋白箱迴歸測試
+驗證，非現場實戰）。`tests/bin/run-all-tests.sh` 104 passed 0 failed。
 
 ---
diff --git a/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh b/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
index 2a290405..af47113c 100755
--- a/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
+++ b/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
@@ -804,19 +804,14 @@ gate_dispatch_command() {
   fi
 }
 
-# CC-572: clear a fixed result path before a corrective retry re-dispatches
-# to it. Shared by the sequential and parallel synthesis retry loops (each
-# retries once, to the SAME $OUTPUT_FILE path, unlike the reviewer-protocol
-# retry which always writes to a brand-new path).
-#
-# Removing the path (not truncating it) matters: observed in production,
-# an executor's patch tool can choose an "Update File" operation (which
-# locates existing content to edit) against a path that still EXISTS on
-# disk, even truncated to 0 bytes -- and that operation then fails
-# ("Failed to find expected lines", "invalid patch: multiple operations
-# target <file>") because there is no content to locate. Only removing the
-# path forces an unambiguous "Add File" the same way a brand-new path
-# would, matching the reviewer-retry shape's already-reliable behavior.
+# CC-572: removing the path (not truncating it) matters -- observed in
+# production, an executor's patch tool can choose an "Update File"
+# operation (which locates existing content to edit) against a path that
+# still EXISTS on disk, even truncated to 0 bytes -- and that operation
+# then fails ("Failed to find expected lines", "invalid patch: multiple
+# operations target <file>") because there is no content to locate. Only
+# removing the path forces an unambiguous "Add File", matching the
+# reviewer-retry path's already-reliable brand-new-filename behavior.
 gate_clear_retry_target() {
   rm -f "$1"
 }

From da94f3580c797b3168c27f5d6708a6e959767193 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lien Chen <screen.leon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:50:34 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 7/7] docs(CC-572): remove ticket-number references from code
 comments

Ticket refs belong in BACKLOG.md/DECISIONS.md, not in code/test comments,
which should describe current behavior on their own terms. Removed all
CC-572 mentions from runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh and tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
(comments and the _cc572_-prefixed variable names), rewording each to state
what the code does/why without the ticket citation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0177ds9nxEMtsh3bwpBxNHYx
---
 runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh      | 20 +++++++++----------
 tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh | 40 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh b/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
index af47113c..f06d47a4 100755
--- a/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
+++ b/runtime/bin/pr-gate.sh
@@ -804,14 +804,14 @@ gate_dispatch_command() {
   fi
 }
 
-# CC-572: removing the path (not truncating it) matters -- observed in
-# production, an executor's patch tool can choose an "Update File"
-# operation (which locates existing content to edit) against a path that
-# still EXISTS on disk, even truncated to 0 bytes -- and that operation
-# then fails ("Failed to find expected lines", "invalid patch: multiple
-# operations target <file>") because there is no content to locate. Only
-# removing the path forces an unambiguous "Add File", matching the
-# reviewer-retry path's already-reliable brand-new-filename behavior.
+# Removing the path (not truncating it) matters -- observed in production,
+# an executor's patch tool can choose an "Update File" operation (which
+# locates existing content to edit) against a path that still EXISTS on
+# disk, even truncated to 0 bytes -- and that operation then fails
+# ("Failed to find expected lines", "invalid patch: multiple operations
+# target <file>") because there is no content to locate. Only removing the
+# path forces an unambiguous "Add File", matching the reviewer-retry path's
+# already-reliable brand-new-filename behavior.
 gate_clear_retry_target() {
   rm -f "$1"
 }
@@ -2757,7 +2757,7 @@ BRIEF_EOF
     # APPEND for the rest, so a retry must start from a clean slate:
     # appending to a rejected, half-ordered one compounds the defect the
     # retry exists to fix. See gate_clear_retry_target for why this removes
-    # the path rather than truncating it (CC-572).
+    # the path rather than truncating it.
     gate_clear_retry_target "$OUTPUT_FILE"
     # Same trust boundary as the parallel retry: the reason quotes ids read
     # from the rejected artifact, so flatten newlines and bound the length
@@ -3636,7 +3636,7 @@ SBRIEF_P2
       # brand-new path, e.g. reviewer-<name>-<ts>-retry1.md), the synthesis
       # retry re-dispatches to the SAME fixed $OUTPUT_FILE path. See
       # gate_clear_retry_target for why this removes the path rather than
-      # leaving attempt 1's content in place (CC-572). The brief already
+      # leaving attempt 1's content in place. The brief already
       # tells the model to rebuild every field fresh from the embedded
       # reviewer context, so nothing here depends on attempt 1's on-disk
       # content surviving into attempt 2.
diff --git a/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh b/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
index dfc4d582..920989cc 100755
--- a/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
+++ b/tests/shell/test-pr-gate.sh
@@ -120,24 +120,24 @@ done
 reviewer_name="$(awk '$1 == "Reviewer:" { print $2; exit }' "$brief_file")"
 : "${reviewer_name:=stub-reviewer}"
 
-# CC-572: record whether the synthesis/sequential result path exists on disk
-# at the very start of THIS dispatch (before this stub or anything else in
-# this invocation touches it) -- the property a synthesis retry must uphold
-# is that the path is gone (not just empty) before the retry's own write
+# Record whether the synthesis/sequential result path exists on disk at the
+# very start of THIS dispatch (before this stub or anything else in this
+# invocation touches it) -- the property a synthesis retry must uphold is
+# that the path is gone (not just empty) before the retry's own write
 # begins. Must run before any other block below that might create the file.
 if [[ -n "${CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR:-}" ]] \
     && { [[ "$brief_file" == *-synthesis.md ]] || grep -q '^goal: Sequential ' "$brief_file"; }; then
-  _cc572_output_path=$(grep -o '\- new:.*' "$brief_file" | head -1 | awk '{print $NF}')
+  _output_exists_path=$(grep -o '\- new:.*' "$brief_file" | head -1 | awk '{print $NF}')
   mkdir -p "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR"
   # Each gate run's synthesis dispatches at most twice (initial + one
   # retry), so a fixed first/second pair of files is simpler than a
   # counted/globbed sequence for a caller that only ever expects two checks.
-  _cc572_state="exists"
-  [[ -n "$_cc572_output_path" && -e "$_cc572_output_path" ]] || _cc572_state="absent"
+  _output_exists_state="exists"
+  [[ -n "$_output_exists_path" && -e "$_output_exists_path" ]] || _output_exists_state="absent"
   if [[ ! -e "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR/first" ]]; then
-    printf '%s\n' "$_cc572_state" > "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR/first"
+    printf '%s\n' "$_output_exists_state" > "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR/first"
   else
-    printf '%s\n' "$_cc572_state" > "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR/second"
+    printf '%s\n' "$_output_exists_state" > "$CODEX_GATE_CAPTURE_OUTPUT_EXISTS_DIR/second"
   fi
 fi
 
@@ -11908,17 +11908,17 @@ test_parallel_synthesis_retry_brief_bounds_long_reason() {
   pass "$name"
 }
 
-# Behavior (CC-572): a synthesis retry (either mode) must remove
-# $OUTPUT_FILE before re-dispatching, not just leave the first attempt's
-# content sitting on disk. Observed in production: an executor's patch tool
-# can choose an "Update File" operation against a path that still exists
-# (even truncated to empty), and that operation then fails outright because
-# there is no matching content to locate -- a hard tool failure unrelated to
-# the actual synthesis content. Only full removal forces an unambiguous
+# Behavior: a synthesis retry (either mode) must remove $OUTPUT_FILE before
+# re-dispatching, not just leave the first attempt's content sitting on
+# disk. Observed in production: an executor's patch tool can choose an
+# "Update File" operation against a path that still exists (even truncated
+# to empty), and that operation then fails outright because there is no
+# matching content to locate -- a hard tool failure unrelated to the
+# actual synthesis content. Only full removal forces an unambiguous
 # "Add File" the same way a brand-new path would.
 # Steps: force a first-attempt synthesis failure (existing malformed-seed
-# mutation); the CC-572 capture hook in the stub records, at the very start
-# of EACH synthesis dispatch (before the stub or anything else writes to the
+# mutation); the capture hook in the stub records, at the very start of
+# EACH synthesis dispatch (before the stub or anything else writes to the
 # path), whether $OUTPUT_FILE existed at that instant. Assert the first
 # check says "exists" (the reviewer-append step already wrote content before
 # synthesis attempt 1 runs) and the second (retry) check says "absent".
@@ -11957,12 +11957,12 @@ _test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
   pass "$name"
 }
 
-# Behavior: parallel-mode wrapper for the shared CC-572 check above.
+# Behavior: parallel-mode wrapper for the shared check above.
 test_parallel_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
   _test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch parallel synthesis-protocol
 }
 
-# Behavior: sequential-mode wrapper for the shared CC-572 check above.
+# Behavior: sequential-mode wrapper for the shared check above.
 test_sequential_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch() {
   _test_synthesis_retry_removes_output_file_before_redispatch sequential sequential-protocol
 }