# Round 10 review — GLM compatibility pass (revision 16)

Scope: §1, §2, §6, §11, §18, plus the round-9 disposition cross-references that fall inside these sections.

## Verification notes

- **Biometric matrix consistency (§1 ↔ §6).** The §1 table (no biometrics for cancel/deny-once/allow-once; biometrics for every reusable-rule change, Forever default, commands, 1Password, credential release) matches §6 enforcement: both verifiers derive key class from retained action semantics, the narrow decision key cannot authorize rule changes/execution/1Password/release/enrollment, and the allow-once exception is bound to the captured request only. Temporary/session rules requiring biometrics are stated in both sections. No gap.
- **State machine ↔ crash handling ↔ §18 acceptance.** Terminal-only-when-undispatched rules, consumption-before-side-effect, single-use signatures, and first-valid-decision-wins are internally consistent. §6 "Refresh request" and §18 "Recapture only never-consumed requests, preserving age" agree; no path turns denial, cancellation, crash, or uncertainty into approval or automatic retry.
- **Encoding rules (§6 ↔ §18).** Reject duplicate/unknown-critical/unsupported-version input, canonical-byte verification without field dropping, no re-encoding into a weaker schema, no relay version trust, and purpose/domain separation are consistent across both sections.
- **Round-9 disposition checks.** Correction 2 (on-disk replacement is activation; defer installation, not merely relaunch) appears in §18 acceptance ("Defer both on-disk installation and relaunch without interrupting the action"). Correction 3 (retry only an authenticated no-admission response; never replay a possibly admitted command; bounded visible wait) appears in §18 acceptance. Correction 1 (transport credential custody) lies in sections outside this pass's scope and is not evaluated here. The disposition's account of round 9 matches §11's protocol.
- **Minor wording, non-substantive:** the §6 bindings table lists three signed objects (Request, Decision, Status) while the following text says "define two structures." The surrounding text resolves this unambiguously — status is authenticated separately and "never approval authority" — so there is no concrete failure mode; no correction is warranted.

No UX-regressing corrections were needed; the binding UX constraints (one biometric for protected actions, biometric-free LS once/cancel, biometrics for all reusable rules, no forced re-pairing) are preserved as written.

## Conclusion

NO SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS