fix(memory): verdict lines carry the brief and a distinguishing mission id

The first self_audit run on a planted brief/condition mismatch found the
pattern and quoted it, then diagnosed "the agent skipped the section": the
record held the condition but not the brief, and working agents never see the
condition. It also read two missions as one — a UUIDv7's first 8 chars are a
timestamp, and missions 34 s apart both rendered as 01a0cb38.

- verdict_line records the phase brief (config.task) beside the condition
- the short mission id is the uuid tail
- self_audit copies the record into the checkout (the judge cannot read
  /mission/memory) and compares brief with condition

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <[email protected]>

templates/workflows/self_audit.toml

@@ -22,16 +22,17 @@ default_topology = "pipeline"
 task = """
 Audit what this repository's missions have learned.
 
-The record is /mission/memory/PROJECT-MEMORY.md: one line per judged phase of every mission on this repository — MET or UNMET, the phase kind, the completion condition, and the judge's reason. That record is the whole subject of this audit. Do not look for agent brain files, rosters or anything else to audit; there is nothing else.
+The record is /mission/memory/PROJECT-MEMORY.md: one line per judged phase of every mission on this repository — MET or UNMET, the phase kind, the brief the agent was given (newer lines), the completion condition it was judged against, and the judge's reason. Working agents are NOT shown their completion condition; they see only the brief. That record is the whole subject of this audit. Do not look for agent brain files, rosters or anything else to audit; there is nothing else.
 
 If the file is absent, the repository has no judged history yet. Write that in research/IMPROVEMENT-AUDIT.md and stop — that is a complete audit.
 
-Otherwise:
+Otherwise, first copy the record verbatim to research/PROJECT-RECORD.md. The judge of this audit cannot read /mission/memory; that copy is how your quotes get checked.
 
 1. Count the lines, and how many are MET and how many UNMET. State the numbers.
 2. Look for patterns, not incidents: the same kind of work failing more than once, the judge asking for the same missing thing more than once, a condition that passed only after several iterations. One UNMET line is an incident, not a pattern — name it as an incident and propose nothing for it.
 3. For each pattern, quote the record lines it rests on, copied verbatim as they appear in the file. A paraphrase or a summary table is not evidence; the quoted lines are.
 4. For each pattern, propose ONE change to how the work is set up — a reworded completion condition (old and new wording), a missing skill, a recipe setting, a task brief — and say why it would have turned those UNMET lines into MET. A proposal that fewer than two lines support is dropped, not softened.
+   When a line carries a brief, compare it with the condition. A requirement that appears in the condition and not in the brief was never asked of the agent — that is a setup defect, not the agent skipping work, and the fix belongs in the brief, not in the agent's discipline.
 5. If the record shows no failure pattern, say so, and say that no change is warranted. That is a correct result, and on a thin or clean record it is the expected one. Never invent a pattern to have something to report.
 
 You cannot apply anything and there is nothing to submit to. Write everything to research/IMPROVEMENT-AUDIT.md; the operator decides.
@@ -39,8 +40,11 @@ You cannot apply anything and there is nothing to submit to. Write everything to
 # Wording follows the measured rule: say what the file CONTAINS. The v3 run's
 # condition said "quotes the record lines each finding rests on" and the judge
 # failed an audit with no failure patterns for paraphrasing its observations.
+# The judge cannot read /mission/memory, so iteration 0 of the first recipe run
+# failed as "could not verify the quotes"; the agent then copied the record into
+# the checkout unprompted and passed. The copy is now part of the brief.
 # The quoting requirement now attaches to what needs evidence — a reported
 # pattern — and the clean-record outcome is named so it reads as a pass.
-done_when = "research/IMPROVEMENT-AUDIT.md exists and either states that no project record was present, or states how many verdict lines the record contains with the MET and UNMET counts and then, for each failure pattern it reports, quotes at least two record lines verbatim and proposes one change, or states that the record shows no failure pattern and no change is warranted"
+done_when = "research/IMPROVEMENT-AUDIT.md exists and either states that no project record was present, or research/PROJECT-RECORD.md holds the record's lines and the audit states how many verdict lines the record contains with the MET and UNMET counts and then, for each failure pattern it reports, quotes at least two record lines verbatim and proposes one change, or states that the record shows no failure pattern and no change is warranted"
 max_iterations = 2
 commit_policy = "always"