## Summary

BLOCK: the plan retains conflicting 1..5 principle requirements, so it does not yet prove the mandated exact 3..5 boundary. The unconditional revocation fallback and receipt provenance closure are otherwise explicit and grounded.

## Claims

- The planner artifact is indexed as SHA-256 `19d5d240c3807f4a66ab5fd2366f9e74abfe713659af68156896a4b379f3b020` in `.gjc/_session-019f8455-334a-7000-99ca-318dfd0e06b1/plans/ralplan/5d6f0f32-0de0-4f65-9a78-c57de328be71/index.jsonl`.
- The plan explicitly mandates canonical fallback for authority, consent, safety, enablement, or revision changes before, between, or after stages, with a final gate before publication/reservation (planner lines 121-123).
- The receipt is bound to code-derived revision/canonical/output digests and restricted to opaque IDs and bounded metadata, excluding prose and identity (lines 83-84, 109-110, 124).
- The plan explicitly requires exactly 3..5 approved principles (line 125), but retains 1..5 in the frozen interface (line 59), Revision 2 semantic-atom section, and acceptance criterion 2 (line 129).

## Analysis

The revocation fix is a meaningful improvement over the earlier conditional retention wording: the final closure says no exception and requires byte-identical canonical output, including a final pre-publication gate. The receipt design has safe provenance because the binding digest is code-derived from canonical state, the output/canonical hashes bind the result, and the receipt excludes customer identifiers, prose, prompts, paths, destinations, and secrets.

The exact-principle closure is not complete. The later final-closure sentence conflicts with earlier API/documentation and, critically, the acceptance criterion. An implementer can satisfy the acceptance suite while accepting one or two principles, violating the mandatory exact 3..5 boundary. The plan must make the invariant uniform and test the lower and upper invalid boundaries.

## Root Cause

The final correction was appended without reconciling all prior normative and acceptance text.

## Findings

- HIGH — `stage-01-planner.md:129` — Acceptance permits 1..5 principles despite the final exact 3..5 contract. Update the interface, Revision 2, and acceptance criterion to exactly 3..5; test 2/3/5/6 boundaries with zero calls outside range. Reported as P1.

## Recommendations

1. Replace every `1..5` principle cardinality statement with `3..5`, including the dataclass comment, Revision 2, and acceptance criterion.
2. Add explicit boundary tests: 2 and 6 reject with canonical output and zero calls; 3 and 5 are accepted.
3. Retain the explicit final revocation gate and digest-bound, non-sensitive receipt requirements unchanged.

## Architectural Status

BLOCK

## Code Review Recommendation

REQUEST CHANGES

## Tradeoffs

- Exact 3..5: satisfies the stated grounding-quality floor and bounds prompt content.
- 1..5: admits under-grounded one/two-principle drafts and contradicts the mandated contract.