Stage 6: Review, handoff & close

Concept — context handoff, evidence, and the learning loop

1 · Reopen Prediction #1

You have now answered the rollout question three times:

flowchart LR
  accTitle: Compare the three predictions
  accDescr: Stage 0 blind, then Stage 3 informed, then Stage 5 evidenced.
  A["Stage 0 · blind"] --> B["Stage 3 · informed"] --> C["Stage 5 · evidenced"]

Compare all three. What made the difference — and would you have found it without the compatibility matrix?

2 · Record one reusable practice

One sentence in docs/workflow-tracker.md: something about multi-repository AI work you would do again on Monday, on your own code, with your own team.

3 · Close out

⌘  /hand-off

Then confirm .claude/journey/ holds a real event trail.

What you should be able to say at the end

When an AI-assisted change spans repositories, I first establish the authority and the seam. I scope agents to local evidence instead of giving one context everything. I reconcile their claims myself, make the specification buildable, define agent contracts and rollout constraints, let AI execute only inside those boundaries, and then prove the pair with independent evidence before I accept the change.

And what it does not mean

The lab proves the represented seam locally. It does not claim the wider Meridian refund capability is production-ready, and pair verification does not replace integration testing or release governance.

---