From eb379c489e37123b216f426600346f769cc734f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: test Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2026 21:45:00 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Drop the refusal patch the claim boundary made redundant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The paragraph existed when `consider` failed closed on the action: the turn stalled, so a sentence had to reopen it. #828 moved the limit to the claim — `consider` now fails closed for book-derived claims only, and both bullets above it already carry the behaviour it restated: - unpriced: "refuses only the current-value portfolio consequence; still give supported non-portfolio judgment" - no book: "Continue with supported research and judgment ... do not manufacture portfolio precision" One rule stands where two stood: a portfolio-derived number comes from the engine, and an absent one stays out. Nothing refuses the turn, so nothing needs reopening. Product group: 49/49 pass. No mirrored surface restates the paragraph. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- skills/fomo-kernel/SKILL.md | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/skills/fomo-kernel/SKILL.md b/skills/fomo-kernel/SKILL.md index f2e0940..6df6c92 100644 --- a/skills/fomo-kernel/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/fomo-kernel/SKILL.md @@ -60,8 +60,6 @@ Exploration leaves no canonical evaluation row. - **Unpriced instruments.** The payload says how to return them. Read closes from the publisher's page, transcribe the `references/price-feed.md` envelope, and rerun with `--prices `. If none are published, `--prices-unavailable ''` refuses only the current-value portfolio consequence; still give supported non-portfolio judgment. Never invent, interpolate, or recall a price; missing is not delisted or zero. - **No recorded book.** `consider` fails closed for book-derived claims. Continue with supported research and judgment, and frame the decision under `references/decision-framing.md`; do not manufacture portfolio precision or persist the conversation. -A refusal does not end the turn. You still owe the judgment that holds without the numbers the engine would not compute — say plainly what could not be checked and name what would unblock it. Never present a degraded number as if it were the real one: a forward-looking decision is refused rather than answered on cost weights, which can invert which position is the largest. - ## After the answer Persistent `consider` records the evaluation; `consider --ephemeral` does not. Say once that a record is a consideration, not an execution. When the user later says what they did, record it against the persistent evaluation rather than starting a new one: