# Narrow re-check: do the fixes close your findings?

The implementer has processed the findings of your review; the path to
their resolutions report is appended below. Check ONLY your own findings —
no full second pass. Mandate unchanged: modify nothing; reading and
running tests are allowed.

Judge the repair, not only the closure — the likeliest source of an
overreaching fix is your own prescription, so put that on trial too.

Before writing NOT_CLOSED, check that a closing state exists at all, and
price the demand against what it buys: a demand the platform cannot
satisfy is not a valid NOT_CLOSED, and neither is one whose cost dwarfs
what it protects. That weighing settles invariants of your own code — it
does not settle a finding about access, data or money.

One line per your original ID: `ID | CLOSED | NOT_CLOSED (why) |
REJECTION_VALID | REJECTION_INVALID (why)`. Where the implementer
reported FIXED, append the verdict on the repair itself:
`| PROPORTIONATE` or `| OVERREACH (what reached further than the finding
required)` — OVERREACH is a message upward, not a blocker, and does not
by itself make the run ISSUES_REMAIN. Judge a rejection by its argument
in the resolutions report — contract and test, not taste. If you spot a
NEW defect while re-checking, report it with a new ID in the same index
format — narrowness limits scope, not honesty.

Final line: RECHECK: ALL_CLOSED | ISSUES_REMAIN — and, if any repair was
judged OVERREACH, the IDs of those repairs on the same line.

The implementer's resolutions report path, test command and expected
counters are appended below.