---
id: RREG-WP-0014
type: workplan
title: "Agentic Characteristic Acceptance"
domain: capabilities
repo: repo-scoping
status: active
owner: codex
topic_slug: foerster-capabilities
created: "2026-05-15"
updated: "2026-05-15"
state_hub_workstream_id: "7feaa5b5-32d8-4b8e-b377-cbb3ddacf64a"
---

# Agentic Characteristic Acceptance

Deterministic rules should not automatically accept candidate
characteristics. Determinism is strongest at fast, source-linked observation and
at applying transparent rejection or downgrade criteria: facts, provenance,
formal quality checks, schema validation, duplicate detection, and clear
negative filters.

Acceptance is a judgement step. When automation stands in for human judgement,
it should be agentic: inspect the evidence, apply the visible quality criteria,
explain the decision, and leave a reviewable trace. Deterministic rules may
invalidate, downgrade, or require review, but they should not silently promote a
candidate into approved registry truth.

## T01: Define Acceptance Policy Boundary

```task
id: RREG-WP-0014-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "4bc2e749-ec9e-45d4-8095-63181efb752b"
```

Write the policy boundary between deterministic gates and acceptance
judgement.

Policy principles:

- Deterministic scanners generate observed facts and source refs.
- Deterministic quality gates can reject, downgrade, merge, flag, or require
  review when criteria are formally expressible.
- Deterministic quality gates cannot approve candidate characteristics.
- Human reviewers can approve.
- Trusted agentic reviewers can approve only after producing an evidence-based
  rationale.
- All automated review outcomes must be inspectable and reversible.

Acceptance criteria:
- Documentation states that deterministic auto-approval is prohibited.
- Existing "trusted auto-approve" terminology is marked for replacement or
  migration.
- The allowed deterministic outcomes are explicitly listed.
- The allowed agentic outcomes are explicitly listed.

## T02: Create Transparent Quality Criteria Registry

```task
id: RREG-WP-0014-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "101998a4-8cf8-4df0-8d05-c4e2041c0cac"
```

Create a reviewable quality criteria registry for candidate characteristics.

Initial criteria should cover:

- Source-role quality: intent/docs/source/tests are stronger than fixtures,
  schema examples, agent guidance, CI/tooling, dependency declarations, or
  derived scope.
- Native utility: owned/facade/adapter claims require explicit product evidence;
  dependency, tooling, configuration, fixture, schema-example, and mention-only
  claims are not native capabilities.
- Hierarchy fit: features should support their parent capability; misplaced
  API/CLI surfaces should be flagged.
- Evidence sufficiency: candidate claims need source refs that support the
  actual abstraction, not just matching vocabulary.
- Circularity: generated `SCOPE.md` text cannot be primary proof for rebuilding
  the same characteristic model.
- Fixture contamination: tests and expectation files can prove scanner behavior
  but should not become repo-native product capability claims.

Acceptance criteria:
- Criteria are stored in a versioned, human-readable format.
- Each criterion has an identifier, description, severity, deterministic action
  if applicable, and reviewer guidance.
- Criteria can be listed through CLI and/or API.
- Assessment and review records include the criteria version used.

## T03: Implement Deterministic Quality Gate Outcomes

```task
id: RREG-WP-0014-T03
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "d599c084-a207-4910-9d0b-578d0c50f282"
```

Apply quality criteria before any human or agentic acceptance step.

Acceptance criteria:
- Candidate abilities, capabilities, features, and evidence can carry gate
  outcomes such as `pass`, `downgraded`, `rejected`, `requires_review`, and
  `invalidated`.
- Rejected or invalidated candidates remain auditable with reason codes.
- Downgraded candidates remain visible but cannot be accepted without explicit
  reviewer override.
- Deterministic gates never mark a candidate as approved.
- The known repo-scoping LLM-provider self-scan failure is flagged before
  acceptance.

## T04: Replace Trusted Auto-Approval With Agentic Review

```task
id: RREG-WP-0014-T04
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "b0d29756-7460-4ffa-8d56-d94cfb34e94f"
```

Replace `trusted_auto_approve_candidate_graph` behavior with an agentic review
workflow.

Acceptance criteria:
- Existing API/CLI/UI affordances no longer present deterministic
  auto-approval as a safe path.
- A configured agentic reviewer receives the candidate graph, source refs,
  quality-gate outcomes, criteria version, and repository context.
- The reviewer can approve, reject, downgrade, request human review, relink,
  or propose edits.
- Each agentic approval includes a rationale tied to evidence and criteria.
- If no agentic reviewer is configured, candidates remain pending review.

## T05: Add Review Decision Audit Trail

```task
id: RREG-WP-0014-T05
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "0d12559a-831e-40ff-bf82-85f45b763f07"
```

Extend review decisions so acceptance history is useful for later audits and
self-scoping assessments.

Acceptance criteria:
- Review decisions record reviewer type: human, agent, deterministic-gate, or
  migration.
- Agentic decisions record reviewer identity/configuration, criteria version,
  prompt or policy version, evidence inspected, and rationale.
- Deterministic gate decisions record rule IDs and outcomes, not approval.
- Review records distinguish "candidate accepted as-is" from "accepted after
  edits/relinks".
- Existing decisions remain readable through a migration or compatibility view.

## T06: Add Human Override And Criteria Refinement Flow

```task
id: RREG-WP-0014-T06
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "bcba3237-fb87-4a38-8e96-12b872d5e6a9"
```

Make quality criteria reviewable and refineable instead of hidden in code.

Acceptance criteria:
- Reviewers can inspect which criteria fired for a candidate.
- Reviewers can override a gate with a reason.
- Overrides are searchable so repeated overrides can drive criteria changes.
- Criteria changes are versioned and linked to workplans or decisions.
- The UI makes it clear when a candidate is blocked by formal criteria versus
  merely awaiting judgement.

## T07: Regression Coverage For Acceptance Boundary

```task
id: RREG-WP-0014-T07
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "37a22c89-ded5-42dd-aaa9-ece79477fcff"
```

Add tests that lock in the new acceptance boundary.

Acceptance criteria:
- Deterministic analysis can generate facts and candidates but cannot approve
  them.
- Deterministic gates can reject/downgrade/require review with reason codes.
- Agentic review can approve only with a rationale and criteria version.
- The repo-scoping self-scan LLM-provider failure is not accepted by
  deterministic rules.
- Existing manual review and approval paths keep working.

## T08: Migration And Compatibility Plan

```task
id: RREG-WP-0014-T08
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "3d5475f6-71a7-4ca7-aa69-573e91d1fe1e"
```

Plan the migration away from trusted deterministic auto-approval.

Acceptance criteria:
- Existing approved maps created by trusted auto-approval can be identified.
- Users can rebuild or re-review those maps without losing audit history.
- API and CLI changes are documented with compatibility notes.
- The old behavior is either removed or guarded behind an explicit deprecated
  migration mode that cannot run by default.

## Completion Criteria

- Deterministic rules no longer approve candidate characteristics.
- Transparent, versioned quality criteria can reject, downgrade, invalidate, or
  require review.
- Agentic review is the only automated path that can stand in for human
  acceptance.
- Acceptance decisions are auditable, evidence-bound, and useful as training
  signal for future self-scoping assessment.