fix(review): resolve the judged revalidation, setup-authority, plan-gate and findings-record ambiguities

The census review workflow judge scored clarity/actionability 3 on both
attempts: smoke-clock limits appeared to forbid post-repair revalidation,
the caller deadline was undefined, 'ask for setup' conflicted with the
report-only browser rule, fallback-sourced HIGH discrepancies had no gate
decision, and the Step 5.8 record omitted adversarial findings.

review/SKILL.md

@@ -823,9 +823,9 @@ Never install, import cookies or bootstrap tests. Functional-only skips browser
 - Required: plan commands/assertions, listed separately. Other ideas are optional, untested.
 
 **3. Run smoke and plan checks.**
-Follow the shared Probe loop for smoke checks, replays and revalidation until the smoke limit.
-Then run required plan checks, even after smoke expires, using the same procedure but no smoke guard; never reset the clock.
-Use finite command timeouts, capped at the caller's remaining time if it has a deadline.
+Follow the shared Probe loop for smoke checks and replays until the smoke limit.
+Then run required plan checks and revalidation, even after smoke expires, using the same procedure but no smoke guard; never reset the clock.
+Use finite command timeouts, capped at the caller's remaining time if it has a deadline. /review sets none; only an invoker-supplied EARLIER_UTC counts.
 Await clock/guard results before acting. When the caller's deadline expires, mark unfinished checks not-run.
 
 **4. Check freshness before reporting.**
@@ -843,7 +843,8 @@ Return verified defects to Fix-First: `path`, `line`, `category`,
 `fingerprint: path:line:category`, replay, `test_stub`. Use checklist severity;
 unmatched functional failures are `functional-contract`, `CRITICAL`.
 Setup/permission blockers are not defects. Test creation needs user approval.
-Ask for setup/permission, never secrets. Unresolved coverage makes Step 5.8 incomplete; a ship waiver cannot complete it.
+Ask only for a named permission or setup the user performs, never secrets. Report-only /review never runs setup, installs or cookie import, even after approval.
+After a grant, recheck readiness and run affected checks; otherwise they stay blocked. Unresolved coverage makes Step 5.8 incomplete; a ship waiver cannot complete it.
 
 **5. Prepare one provisional QA section.**
 Read QA's `templates/functional-report-template.md`. Title it
@@ -1066,8 +1067,9 @@ for the native result, or vice versa. Step 4.8's structured-review gate still ap
 
 - Use Step 4.6's `specialists` object unchanged, including its empty small-diff map.
   If this host omits Review Army, use `specialists: {}` without claiming specialist coverage.
-- Build `findings` from final-pass core, specialist, verified exploratory QA
-  findings and invocation actions. Retain `fingerprint`, `severity`
+- Build `findings` from the final-pass findings Step 5 combined (core, specialist,
+  Step 4.8 adversarial, VALID & ACTIONABLE Greptile and verified exploratory QA
+  findings) and invocation actions. Retain `fingerprint`, `severity`
   (`CRITICAL|INFORMATIONAL`), `action`, and any `advisory`, `evidence_paths`,
   `helper_target`. Recheck source after fixes. The logger uses `sharedLibsFingerprint`,
   never supplied/model hashes.

review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -386,8 +386,9 @@ for the native result, or vice versa. Step 4.8's structured-review gate still ap
 
 - Use Step 4.6's `specialists` object unchanged, including its empty small-diff map.
   If this host omits Review Army, use `specialists: {}` without claiming specialist coverage.
-- Build `findings` from final-pass core, specialist, verified exploratory QA
-  findings and invocation actions. Retain `fingerprint`, `severity`
+- Build `findings` from the final-pass findings Step 5 combined (core, specialist,
+  Step 4.8 adversarial, VALID & ACTIONABLE Greptile and verified exploratory QA
+  findings) and invocation actions. Retain `fingerprint`, `severity`
   (`CRITICAL|INFORMATIONAL`), `action`, and any `advisory`, `evidence_paths`,
   `helper_target`. Recheck source after fixes. The logger uses `sharedLibsFingerprint`,
   never supplied/model hashes.

review/sections/plan-completion.md

@@ -27,8 +27,8 @@ done
 3. **Validation:** For search results, read the first 20 lines and verify the project, feature and current branch. A mismatch means "no plan file found." Conversation-supplied paths bypass this search-result check.
 
 **Error handling:**
-- No plan file found → skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
-- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."
+- No plan file found → say "No plan file detected." and use the Fallback Intent Sources below.
+- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → say "Plan file found but unreadable." and use the Fallback Intent Sources below; never report plan items as verified.
 
 ### Actionable Item Extraction
 
@@ -192,13 +192,15 @@ The plan completion results augment the existing Scope Drift Detection. If a pla
 
 - **NOT DONE items** become additional evidence for **MISSING REQUIREMENTS** in the scope drift report.
 - **Items in the diff that don't match any plan item** become evidence for **SCOPE CREEP** detection.
-- **HIGH-impact discrepancies** trigger AskUserQuestion:
+- **HIGH-impact plan-file discrepancies** trigger AskUserQuestion:
   - Show the investigation findings
   - Options: A) Stop this review for implementation, B) Continue this review with P1 TODOs, C) Record the items as intentionally dropped
   - A ends this invocation before code review or implementation. List the missing work; after implementation, start a fresh /review.
   - B queues the approved TODO changes for Step 5, not this read-only audit. B/C continue to the final Scope Check and Step 2. None of these choices authorizes shipping or waives required verification.
 
-This is **INFORMATIONAL** unless HIGH-impact discrepancies are found (then it gates via AskUserQuestion).
+This is **INFORMATIONAL** unless HIGH-impact plan-file discrepancies are found (then it gates via AskUserQuestion).
+Discrepancies derived only from fallback sources (commit messages, TODOS.md, PR description) never trigger
+this question, whatever their IMPACT: report them in the Scope Check as lower-confidence missing requirements.
 
 When continuing after the audit (no HIGH-impact gate, or option B/C), emit the
 single final Scope Check using Step 1.5's provisional notes and this plan context: