fix(gitea): admins could override the gate -- the enforcement was not enforcing

enable_status_check and required_approvals were set earlier today and recorded as done.
They did not bite. block_admin_merge_override was false, and Gitea lets repo 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: PRs #5-#9 all merged while required_approvals: 1
was in force, with ZERO approvals recorded on any of them.

Two process failures, both the same shape as the defect this whole session started with:

1. 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. /branch_protections/main is authoritative.
2. Probed for a field name assumed to 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", so
   a PATCH that silently did nothing produced a convincing before/after. jq returning null
   is not a value -- it may be an absence. Enumerate with to_entries.

require-gate.sh now sets block_admin_merge_override: true; block-admin-override.sh fixes it
in isolation. Both carry the field-name warning.

This PR is the test. If it merges WITHOUT an approval, the fix did not work.

Also records the governance question: with only jakman85 (human) and gitea-admin (agent),
a human-authored PR now needs the automation account to approve it. That is ceremony, not
review, and the choice between keeping it, dropping approvals in favour of the status
check, or adding a second human is the operator's to make.

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

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.**