# Round 8 GLM scoped review — sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (revision 14)

## Checks performed

- **Biometric matrix consistency (§1 vs §6, §7):** Every reusable-rule decision (Forever, session, timed) requires the biometric key; allow-once/deny-once/target-cancel/decline are confined to the narrow decision key. §6 enforcement ("both verifiers derive the required key class from retained action semantics") closes the caller-relabeling and phone-self-assertion paths. Internally consistent.
- **Binding UX constraints:** One biometric per protected action; §7's one-biometric feasibility gate has an explicit consultation path if a second prompt or weaker protection would be needed. No lock-screen approval surface or extra unlock step is introduced. Remote administrator enrollment/recovery avoids forced physical access; pairing retention across biometric changes is preserved with a defined gate rather than mandated re-pairing. The five-minute expiry is provisional, adjustable, with explicit resubmission — not a forced shortened window.
- **Multi-phone races and revocation:** First-valid-decision consumption at the Mac ledger, single-use signatures, revocation serialized with decision consumption, and stale-result returns close replay and late-winner paths across §5/§6.
- **Round-7 fix interactions:** The section 17 update-scheduling controls referenced from §6 are expressly denied target-action and release-signing authority and do not widen the decision key's deny list; no conflict with the no-auto-retry or unknown-terminal rules in §6.
- **Encoding and display:** Digest recomputation on Android, distinct "Request too large" result, and no-truncation at any stage are consistent between §1 and §6.
- **Cancellation authority:** Verified-IPC caller identity, purpose-separated cancellation, ledger requirement for target-app effects, and the no-remaining-approval-surface cancellation rule are consistent across §5 and §6.
- **Crash/uncertain handling:** Consumption-before-side-effect persistence, bounded dispatch permits, no automatic retry, and user-initiated Refresh form a closed loop.

No internal contradiction, authority gap, or binding-UX violation found within the reviewed sections.

NO SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS