docs(auth): record what PR #30 's CI actually ran, not what its tick said

Read the commit's /statuses rather than the check mark: gate / gate (pull_request) state=success desc='Successful in 1m41s' gate / conformance (pull_request) state=success desc='Has been skipped' The second is CLAUDE.md 2b's trap in the wild -- a SKIPPED Gitea job reports state=success, so that green tick certifies nothing. It agrees exactly with the local rc 3: the offline L0/L1 subset passed, L2/L3 never ran. Anyone reading the PR's check mark alone would conclude the opposite. Also re-measured branch protection instead of trusting the table in CLAUDE.md: GET /repos/.../branches/main -> protected=true, user_can_push=false. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
2026-09-30 16:13:06 -05:00
1 changed files with 12 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -200,6 +200,18 @@ than the file merely existing.
  not skipped — mounting the sibling spec repo at `/home-network-k3s` (the path
  `ci/spec-immutability.sh` actually defaults to) in the ENGINE shim fixes that skip; the commonly
  circulated shim mounts it at its host path, where `SPEC_REPO` never finds it.
+- **Gitea CI on this PR, read from the commit's `/statuses` rather than from a tick.** Two contexts
+  reported, and **only one of them ran**:
+
+      gate / gate (pull_request)         state=success   desc='Successful in 1m41s'
+      gate / conformance (pull_request)  state=success   desc='Has been skipped'
+
+  That second line is §2b's trap in the wild: a **skipped** Gitea job reports `state=success`. The
+  conformance job did not execute, so the green tick beside it certifies nothing. Read together with
+  the local rc 3 above, the two agree exactly — the offline L0/L1 subset passed and L2/L3 never ran.
+  Anyone reading the PR's check mark alone would conclude otherwise.
+- **`main` is protected**, re-measured this session rather than assumed:
+  `GET /repos/.../branches/main` → `protected=true`, `user_can_push=false`.

 ## What I did NOT verify