fix(ci): accept the override from a PR review, and stop misdiagnosing an unreadable comments API

The override did not work on its first real test, and the reason was invisible
from the outside. Run 203 on PR #38: a well-formed `/approve-override` posted by
jakman85 in the PR comment box, 29 minutes newer than the head commit, and the
stage still blocked with:

    approval-override: COMMENTS_JSON is not a list

SETTINGS_API_TOKEN is minted [read:repository, read:admin], and Gitea puts
/issues/{n}/comments behind the *issue* scope — so Gitea answered with an error
OBJECT, `jq -e .` accepted it as valid JSON, and the stage fell through to 'no
approving review'. A permission failure wearing the costume of a missing
override. /pulls/{n}/files and /pulls/{n}/reviews are under read:repository,
which is why every other part of the same stage worked.

1. The diagnosis no longer lies. COMMENTS_JSON leaves the must-parse-or-block
   loop and is checked for being an ARRAY; when it is not, the stage prints
   Gitea's own .message, names the missing scope and says where to post instead.
   An unreadable source can only cause a false BLOCK, never a false pass, so a
   loud warning is the honest behaviour and blocking was not.
2. An override is accepted from a PR REVIEW body as well as a comment, so the
   hatch is not hostage to one API scope — a review of type 'Comment' works on
   the token CI has today. The gate names which source it used; PENDING
   (unsubmitted, author-only) reviews are dropped.
3. set-ci-token.sh requests read:issue, making the ordinary comment box work —
   on a RE-RUN only, since an existing token's scopes cannot be widened.

ci/tests/approval-override.test.sh: 23 -> 38 assertions, covering the reviews
source, PENDING reviews, an error object from the comments API, 'an unreadable
comments source must not suppress a valid review override', latest-wins across
both sources, and that the diagnostic quotes Gitea's message.

Also measured and recorded: run 203 shows gitea-settings PASS after the operator
ran the live PATCH, with block_admin_merge_override still true — the narrow
change held, the approval count moved and the gate's teeth did not.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>

decisions/2026-10-01-admin-approval-override.md

@@ -87,6 +87,43 @@ Also updated: `CLAUDE.md` §1 and the §2 enforcement table (the "approval requi
 explicitly ⬜ with the reason, rather than a stale ✅), and `infra/gitea/README.md` gains §6 and
 marks its historical step 4 as reversed — do not re-apply.
 
+**Second pass, 2026-10-02 — the override did not work the first time, and why.** The operator ran
+the live PATCH (`required_approvals: 0` confirmed live, with `block_admin_merge_override` and
+`enable_status_check` still `true`), merged PR #35, and posted `/approve-override Need to ensure
+approval override work as expected` on PR #38. The gate re-ran (run 203) and **still blocked.**
+
+The comment was not at fault: posted by `jakman85`, directive at the start of the line, reason
+present, and 29 minutes **newer** than head commit `616a497`, so it cleared the staleness rule.
+What failed was that **CI could not read it.** Run 203's log:
+
+    approval-override: COMMENTS_JSON is not a list
+
+`SETTINGS_API_TOKEN` is minted `["read:repository", "read:admin"]` by
+`infra/gitea/set-ci-token.sh`, and Gitea puts `/issues/{n}/comments` behind the **issue** scope. So
+Gitea returned an error *object*, `jq -e .` accepted it as valid JSON, and the stage fell through
+to "no approving review" — **a permission failure wearing the costume of a missing override.**
+`/pulls/{n}/files` and `/pulls/{n}/reviews` are under `read:repository`, which is exactly why every
+other part of the same stage worked and this one did not.
+
+Three fixes, and the first is the one that mattered most:
+
+1. **The diagnosis is no longer misleading.** `COMMENTS_JSON` is out of the must-parse-or-block
+   loop and is explicitly checked for being an *array*; when it is not, the stage prints Gitea's
+   own `.message`, names the missing scope, and says where to post the override instead. An
+   unreadable source can only cause a false BLOCK, never a false pass, so degrading it to a loud
+   warning is safe — and blocking on it was never the honest behaviour.
+2. **The override is accepted from a PR REVIEW body as well as a comment**, so the hatch is not
+   hostage to one API scope. A review of type "Comment" works on the token CI has *today*. The
+   gate names which source it used. `PENDING` (unsubmitted, author-only draft) reviews are dropped.
+3. **`set-ci-token.sh` now requests `read:issue`**, which makes the ordinary comment box work —
+   the thing anybody reaches for first. It takes effect only on a **re-run**: an existing token's
+   scopes cannot be widened in place.
+
+`ci/tests/approval-override.test.sh` grows from 23 to **38 assertions**, covering the reviews
+source, `PENDING` reviews, an error *object* from the comments API, "an unreadable comments source
+must not suppress a valid review override", latest-wins across both sources, and that the
+diagnostic actually quotes Gitea's message.
+
 **One adjacent fix, deliberately in scope: `ci/tests/gate-decision.test.sh` was already broken.**
 It hand-maintains a list of stub stage scripts that "must name EVERY stage `gate.sh` runs", and it
 did not name `approval-policy` — added to `gate.sh` by PR #17 and never added here. `run_stage`
@@ -130,8 +167,30 @@ missing from its test. `make -C ci test` goes from **FAILED to all suites passed
   **FAIL, 15 failed / 35 passed**. After deriving the stub list from `gate.sh`: **PASS, 50
   assertions**.
 - **`make -C ci test` in the pinned toolbox: `ci/tests: all suites passed`, rc 0** — approval-override
-  23, gate-decision 50, touched-requirements-base 31, test-attribution 15, touched-requirements 26,
+  **38**, gate-decision 50, touched-requirements-base 31, test-attribution 15, touched-requirements 26,
   decisions-log pass. It was rc 2 (`ci/tests: FAILED`) before the stub-list fix.
+- **The live flip worked, and the drift detector proved it.** Run 202 (before): `gitea-settings:
+  FAIL`, `required_approvals: DECLARED 0 but LIVE is 1`. Run 203 (after the operator ran the
+  PATCH): `gitea-settings: pass`, with `block_admin_merge_override = true` among the keys it
+  checked. So the narrow change held — the approval count moved and the gate's teeth did not.
+- **The first override attempt failed for a measured reason, not a guessed one.** Run 203 log:
+  `approval-override: COMMENTS_JSON is not a list`. Token scopes read from `set-ci-token.sh`:
+  `[read:repository, read:admin]`. The same run successfully read `/pulls/38` and
+  `/pulls/38/files` (author and sensitive paths both resolved) and got past the reviews
+  validation, which is how I know `/pulls/{n}/reviews` IS readable with that token — from
+  behaviour, not from documentation.
+- **The comment itself was valid.** `created_at` 2026-10-02T05:31:24Z vs head commit `616a497`
+  committer date 2026-10-02T00:02:20-05:00 → the comment is 29m04s newer, so it passed the
+  staleness rule. Ruling the comment out is what left the token scope as the only candidate.
+- **`?limit=1000` is not the culprit.** Queried `/issues/38/comments` with `limit=1000`, `limit=50`
+  and no limit using my own credentials: `type=array` in all three. So the difference is the
+  credential, not the query.
+- **The root cause is confirmed by Gitea, in its own words.** Run 206 (the fix in place):
+  `[warn] cannot read PR COMMENTS from Gitea — token does not have at least one of required
+  scope(s), required=[read:issue], token scope=read:admin,read:repository.` followed by the
+  instruction to post the override as a review. That is the diagnosis the first attempt should
+  have produced, and `gitea-settings: pass` in the same run. The stage still ends `FAIL`, correctly
+  — there is no valid override on the PR yet.
 - **Toolbox merge gate** (`./infra/devcontainer/dev.sh run bash -c './ci/gate.sh'`), run on the
   rebased branch: **rc 3, `MERGE GATE: UNDETERMINED`**. Green stages: spec-immutability,
   decisions-log, lint, l0 (23 offline cases, 0 failures), render-golden including the new
@@ -142,20 +201,32 @@ missing from its test. `make -C ci test` goes from **FAILED to all suites passed
 
 ## What I did NOT verify
 
-- **The live Gitea rule still says `required_approvals: 1`. I did not change it.** Mutating live
-  platform settings is an operator action; `infra/gitea/allow-admin-self-merge.sh` is written,
-  syntax-checked, and **unrun**. The declaration and the live rule must move together.
-  *Now measured, not predicted:* PR #38's CI run (run 202, job 0) fails at **1m44s** with
-  `required_approvals: DECLARED 0 but LIVE is 1` → `gitea-settings: FAIL`. Correct behaviour, and
-  the PR stays red until the script is run.
-- **The override has never been ACCEPTED by a real run** — only offered. Measured in the same CI
-  log: the stage reached `approval-policy: FAIL` on the sensitive paths and printed the *new*
-  code's guidance, `Or, if you hold admin/owner on this repository, comment on the PR:
-  /approve-override <reason> ... NEWER than head commit 7b9f733c`. So the new stage **is** what
-  runs on this PR (self-bootstrapping confirmed by measurement, not by reasoning), and the
-  authorising branch — comment parse → live permission lookup → exit 0 — is still **unexercised**.
-  Posting the comment on PR #38 is its first real test. If it does not work, the recovery is to
-  PATCH `required_approvals` and read run 202's successor log.
+- **The override has still never been ACCEPTED by a real run.** This is the second attempt at
+  this bullet, which is itself the point: the first pass called the hatch unverified, and the
+  first real test found a defect that no amount of local testing would have (an API scope CI has
+  and I did not). What is now measured is that the parse → *reject* path works end to end and
+  diagnoses itself. The **accepting** branch — directive found → live permission lookup → exit 0 —
+  has never executed. Posting the override as a **review** on PR #38 is its first real test, and
+  I would not be surprised by a third round.
+- **`read:issue` is the right scope name — Gitea said so itself, so this is no longer a guess.**
+  Run 206 printed Gitea's own message: `token does not have at least one of required scope(s),
+  required=[read:issue], token scope=read:admin,read:repository`. That both confirms the root
+  cause and names the string, which matters because this repo has been burned by a token *name*
+  that could not exist (`GITEA_SETTINGS_TOKEN`). What is **still** unverified is that the token
+  *mint* accepts it — `POST /users/{u}/tokens` with that scope has not been run. The review route
+  does not depend on it.
+- **I did not verify that Gitea lets a PR's own author submit a `COMMENT`-type review.** Gitea
+  blocks author self-*approval*; "Comment" is expected to be allowed, and that expectation is now
+  load-bearing for the recommended route. It is one click to find out, and I deliberately did not
+  test it by posting an override myself: doing so as `gitea-admin` is precisely the agent
+  self-override that `CLAUDE.md` now forbids.
+- **The whole re-run mechanism is manual.** `gate.yml` triggers on `pull_request` and `push: main`
+  only — there is no `issue_comment` trigger, so posting an override does **not** re-run the gate.
+  Re-run the job from the Actions UI, or close and reopen the PR (which fires `pull_request` and
+  leaves the head SHA alone). **Do not push an empty commit to re-trigger it:** that moves the head
+  commit and makes the override stale by the rule above, so it would have to be posted again. A
+  comment trigger was considered and not built — it would need to check out PR head code while the
+  job holds `SETTINGS_API_TOKEN`, which is the classic pwn-request shape and not worth it here.
 - **I have not seen the gate still REFUSE a merge** now that approvals are 0. The claim that
   `block_admin_merge_override: true` keeps a red gate unmergeable rests on Gitea's documented
   behaviour and on the 2026-09-29 session, **not** on a provoked refusal in this one. That probe