diff --git a/DECISIONS-LOG.md b/DECISIONS-LOG.md
index deb0c8e..195c1dd 100644
--- a/DECISIONS-LOG.md
+++ b/DECISIONS-LOG.md
@@ -4924,3 +4924,43 @@ being unable to recur.
 4. `required_approvals: 1` means a PR you open as `jakman85` needs `gitea-admin` to approve.
    If that friction bites, either open agent work as `gitea-admin` and review as `jakman85`, or
    drop back to relying on the status check alone.
+
+## 2026-09-29 (later still) — the enforcement we "turned on" was overridable by the account that merges
+
+`enable_status_check: true` and `required_approvals: 1` were set earlier today and recorded as
+done. **They did not bite.** `block_admin_merge_override` was `false`, and Gitea lets repository
+admins override merge requirements without it. `jakman85` holds `owner`, so both requirements
+were bypassable by exactly the account that performs every merge.
+
+**The evidence was already on the record and nobody read it:** PRs #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 all
+merged while `required_approvals: 1` was in force, with **zero approvals recorded on any of
+them**. A one-line check (`/pulls/{n}/reviews`) would have shown it at any point.
+
+Two process failures, both mine, both the same shape as the original defect:
+
+1. **I verified with the wrong view.** `/branches/main` reports `protected`,
+   `enable_status_check` and `required_approvals` but NOT `block_admin_merge_override`. It
+   showed everything green while the rule was overridable. The authoritative object is
+   `/branch_protections/main` — read it and enumerate its keys.
+2. **I probed for a field name I assumed existed.** This Gitea (1.24.3) has no
+   `apply_to_admins`. Asking `jq` for it returns `null`, which reads exactly like "set to
+   false" but means "key absent" — so a PATCH that silently did nothing looked like a real
+   before/after. **`jq` returning null is not a value; it may be an absence.** Enumerate with
+   `to_entries`.
+
+Now `block_admin_merge_override: true`, applied and read back. `infra/gitea/require-gate.sh`
+sets it, and `infra/gitea/block-admin-override.sh` fixes it in isolation.
+
+**This is still only a setting.** It is proven when a green PR is REFUSED a merge until
+approved — and that has not been observed yet. This PR is the test: if it merges without an
+approval, the fix did not work and the finding stands.
+
+### The governance question this exposes
+
+There are two accounts: `jakman85` (owner, the human) and `gitea-admin` (the agent). With
+approvals now genuinely required, an agent-authored PR is approved by the human — which is the
+intent. But a PR authored by `jakman85` needs `gitea-admin` to approve it, i.e. the automation
+account rubber-stamping the human. That is ceremony, not review. Options: keep it and accept
+the ceremony; drop `required_approvals` to 0 and rely on the status check, which is the gate
+that actually verifies something; or add a second human account. **This is a decision for the
+operator, not a default to be chosen silently.**
diff --git a/infra/gitea/README.md b/infra/gitea/README.md
index 345c741..719e0f6 100644
--- a/infra/gitea/README.md
+++ b/infra/gitea/README.md
@@ -55,8 +55,27 @@ All four steps are complete and each was verified, not assumed:
 | 4. Collaborator + approvals | ✅ `jakman85` is owner; `required_approvals: 1` |
 
 Direct push to `main` was **provoked and rejected** (`pre-receive hook declined`) as
-`gitea-admin`, a site admin — so protection is not merely declared, it holds for the account
-agents authenticate as.
+`gitea-admin`, a site admin — so push protection is not merely declared, it holds for the
+account agents authenticate as.
+
+### 5. Block the admin override — the step the first pass MISSED
+
+`enable_status_check` and `required_approvals` were set on 2026-09-29 and **still did not
+bite**, because `block_admin_merge_override` was `false`. Gitea lets repo admins override
+merge requirements without it, and `jakman85` holds `owner` — so the two settings that looked
+like the gate were overridable by precisely the account that merges.
+
+**The evidence was sitting in plain sight:** PRs #5 through #9 all merged with
+`required_approvals: 1` in force and **zero approvals recorded on any of them**. Checking the
+*branch* view (`/branches/main`) hid this — it does not expose the field. Read the rule object
+(`/branch_protections/main`) and enumerate its keys.
+
+> **Do not probe for field names you assume exist.** This Gitea (1.24.3) has no
+> `apply_to_admins`; asking `jq` for it returns `null`, which reads like "set to false" but
+> means "key absent". Enumerate with `to_entries` and act on what is really there.
+
+Now `block_admin_merge_override: true`. **That is still only a setting, not evidence** — it is
+proven when a green PR is REFUSED a merge until approved, and not before.
 
 ### `require-gate.sh` / `verify-then-enforce.sh`
 
diff --git a/infra/gitea/block-admin-override.sh b/infra/gitea/block-admin-override.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..ea3b34e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/infra/gitea/block-admin-override.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# Stop repository admins from overriding the merge requirements on `main`.
+#
+# WHY. Gitea lets repo admins override branch-protection merge requirements unless
+# `block_admin_merge_override` is set. It was FALSE, and jakman85 holds `owner` -- so
+# required_approvals and the required status check were both overridable by the one account
+# that actually merges. Evidence: PRs #5-#9 all merged with ZERO approvals recorded against
+# `required_approvals: 1`.
+#
+# NOTE ON FIELD NAMES: this Gitea (1.24.3) has NO `apply_to_admins` field. Querying it with jq
+# returns null, which reads like "set to false" but actually means "key absent". Enumerate the
+# real keys (`to_entries`) rather than probing names you assume exist.
+#
+# Recoverable: an owner can PATCH this back to false if it gets in the way.
+set -euo pipefail
+HOST=gitea.home.keithjackson.dev; OWNER=Home-Network; REPO=home-network-k3s-impl
+creds="$(printf 'protocol=https\nhost=%s\n\n' "$HOST" | git credential fill)"
+U="$(sed -n 's/^username=//p' <<<"$creds")"; P="$(sed -n 's/^password=//p' <<<"$creds")"
+api() { curl -sS --config <(printf 'user = "%s:%s"\n' "$U" "$P") "$@"; }
+B="https://${HOST}/api/v1/repos/${OWNER}/${REPO}/branch_protections/main"
+
+echo "==> before: block_admin_merge_override = $(api "$B" | jq -r .block_admin_merge_override)"
+api -X PATCH -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
+  -d '{"block_admin_merge_override": true}' "$B" >/dev/null
+AFTER=$(api "$B" | jq -r .block_admin_merge_override)
+echo "==> after:  block_admin_merge_override = $AFTER"
+[ "$AFTER" = true ] || { echo "PATCH did not take -- do not record this as enforced." >&2; exit 1; }
+
+api "$B" | jq -r '{enable_push,enable_status_check,status_check_contexts,required_approvals,block_admin_merge_override}'
+cat <<'NOTE'
+
+NOW PROVE IT -- the setting is not the evidence. On the next PR:
+  * let the gate go green, then try to merge WITHOUT approving it.
+  * Gitea must REFUSE. If it merges, this still is not doing its job.
+Do not record approvals as enforced until you have seen a merge refused.
+NOTE
diff --git a/infra/gitea/require-gate.sh b/infra/gitea/require-gate.sh
index 7490e15..4eb21f5 100755
--- a/infra/gitea/require-gate.sh
+++ b/infra/gitea/require-gate.sh
@@ -12,6 +12,15 @@
 #   * NOT `gate / conformance (*)` -- that job is `if: false`, and a skipped Gitea job reports
 #     SUCCESS ("Has been skipped"). Requiring it would pass VACUOUSLY forever while nothing
 #     ran, which under HARD RULE 4 is worse than a deadlock: a deadlock is loud.
+# block_admin_merge_override: true is LOAD-BEARING and was missing on the first pass. Gitea
+# lets repo admins override merge requirements without it, so required_approvals and the
+# required status check are both bypassable by exactly the account that does the merging.
+# Measured: PRs #5-#9 merged with ZERO approvals recorded against required_approvals: 1.
+#
+# FIELD NAMES: this Gitea (1.24.3) has NO `apply_to_admins`. Asking jq for it returns null,
+# which reads like "false" but means "key absent" -- enumerate real keys with `to_entries`
+# instead of probing names you assume exist. That mistake cost a wasted PATCH.
+#
 #   * NOT the `(push)` variant -- after PR #6 there are no per-branch push runs at all, so a
 #     PR would never produce that context.
 set -euo pipefail
@@ -28,7 +37,8 @@ jq -n '{
   required_approvals: 1,
   block_on_rejected_reviews: true,
   dismiss_stale_approvals: true,
-  block_on_outdated_branch: false
+  block_on_outdated_branch: false,
+  block_admin_merge_override: true
 }' | api -X PATCH -H 'Content-Type: application/json' --data @- \
   "https://${HOST}/api/v1/repos/${OWNER}/${REPO}/branch_protections/main" >/dev/null