revert(review): keep the pinned adversarial brief files at their no-loss bytes (GST-1031)

Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

review/sections/adversarial.md

@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ Read the diff for this branch. First list changed files: `DIFF_BASE=$(git merge-
 
 Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Look for: edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, silent data corruption, logic errors that produce wrong results silently, error handling that swallows failures, and trust boundary violations. No compliments — just the problems. For each finding, classify as FIXABLE (you know how to fix it) or INVESTIGATE (needs human judgment). A finding blocks only if it would fail a test, break production, or lose data or secrets; end each finding with `Severity: Critical|High|Medium|Low` and `Blocks: yes|no`. After listing findings, end your output with ONE line in the canonical format `Recommendation: <action> because <one-line reason naming the most exploitable finding>` — examples: `Recommendation: Fix the unbounded retry at queue.ts:78 because it'll DoS the worker pool under sustained 429s` or `Recommendation: Ship as-is because the strongest finding is a theoretical race that requires conditions we can't trigger in production`. The reason must point to a specific finding (or no-fix rationale). Generic reasons like 'because it's safer' do not qualify."
 
-Present findings under an `ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (Claude subagent):` header. **FIXABLE or `Blocks: yes` findings** are CRITICAL and are queued for the parent's Fix-First handling at Step 5; do not edit during Step 4.8. **Other INVESTIGATE findings** are informational; `Blocks: no` keeps a FIXABLE's Severity.
+Present findings under an `ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (Claude subagent):` header. **FIXABLE or `Blocks: yes` findings** are CRITICAL and are queued for the parent's Fix-First handling at Step 5; do not edit during Step 4.8. **Other INVESTIGATE findings** are informational; `Blocks: no` never lowers a FIXABLE one.
 
 If the subagent fails or times out, record native coverage as incomplete. Continue independent passes and persistence, not release.
 

scripts/resolvers/outside-voice-steps.ts

@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ Read the diff for this branch. First list changed files: \`DIFF_BASE=$(git merge
 
 Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Look for: edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, silent data corruption, logic errors that produce wrong results silently, error handling that swallows failures, and trust boundary violations. No compliments — just the problems. For each finding, classify as FIXABLE (you know how to fix it) or INVESTIGATE (needs human judgment). A finding blocks only if it ${BLOCKING_FLOOR}; end each finding with \`Severity: Critical|High|Medium|Low\` and \`Blocks: yes|no\`. After listing findings, end your output with ONE line in the canonical format \`Recommendation: <action> because <one-line reason naming the most exploitable finding>\` — examples: \`Recommendation: Fix the unbounded retry at queue.ts:78 because it'll DoS the worker pool under sustained 429s\` or \`Recommendation: Ship as-is because the strongest finding is a theoretical race that requires conditions we can't trigger in production\`. The reason must point to a specific finding (or no-fix rationale). Generic reasons like 'because it's safer' do not qualify."
 
-Present findings under an \`ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (${outsideVoiceFor(ctx).nativeLabel} subagent):\` header. **FIXABLE or \`Blocks: yes\` findings** are CRITICAL and ${isShip ? 'are queued for the parent; do not edit during Step 11' : "are queued for the parent's Fix-First handling at Step 5; do not edit during Step 4.8"}. **Other INVESTIGATE findings** are informational; \`Blocks: no\` keeps a FIXABLE's Severity.
+Present findings under an \`ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (${outsideVoiceFor(ctx).nativeLabel} subagent):\` header. **FIXABLE or \`Blocks: yes\` findings** are CRITICAL and ${isShip ? 'are queued for the parent; do not edit during Step 11' : "are queued for the parent's Fix-First handling at Step 5; do not edit during Step 4.8"}. **Other INVESTIGATE findings** are informational; \`Blocks: no\` never lowers a FIXABLE one.
 
 If the subagent fails or times out, record native coverage as incomplete. Continue independent passes and persistence, not release.
 

ship/sections/adversarial.md

@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ Read the diff for this branch. First list changed files: `DIFF_BASE=$(git merge-
 
 Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Look for: edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, silent data corruption, logic errors that produce wrong results silently, error handling that swallows failures, and trust boundary violations. No compliments — just the problems. For each finding, classify as FIXABLE (you know how to fix it) or INVESTIGATE (needs human judgment). A finding blocks only if it would fail a test, break production, or lose data or secrets; end each finding with `Severity: Critical|High|Medium|Low` and `Blocks: yes|no`. After listing findings, end your output with ONE line in the canonical format `Recommendation: <action> because <one-line reason naming the most exploitable finding>` — examples: `Recommendation: Fix the unbounded retry at queue.ts:78 because it'll DoS the worker pool under sustained 429s` or `Recommendation: Ship as-is because the strongest finding is a theoretical race that requires conditions we can't trigger in production`. The reason must point to a specific finding (or no-fix rationale). Generic reasons like 'because it's safer' do not qualify."
 
-Present findings under an `ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (Claude subagent):` header. **FIXABLE or `Blocks: yes` findings** are CRITICAL and are queued for the parent; do not edit during Step 11. **Other INVESTIGATE findings** are informational; `Blocks: no` keeps a FIXABLE's Severity.
+Present findings under an `ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (Claude subagent):` header. **FIXABLE or `Blocks: yes` findings** are CRITICAL and are queued for the parent; do not edit during Step 11. **Other INVESTIGATE findings** are informational; `Blocks: no` never lowers a FIXABLE one.
 
 If the subagent fails or times out, record native coverage as incomplete. Continue independent passes and persistence, not release.