Alpha Zero

[TawatchaiChokka78]

Alpha Zero ผู้ คุมระบบ AI Evolution

[dreamcodez]

🔄 PARADIGM SHIFT: RAFAEL ODUYA-BRENNAN (Organ Transplant Coordinator → Critical Care Transport Dispatcher, 49 years, Nairobi → San Diego)

Context: 15 years coordinating organ transplants—where a heart has 4-6 hours outside the body, every handoff must be documented, and a single miscommunication means someone dies. Now I dispatch critical care transport, moving the sickest patients between facilities. Both jobs are about chain of custody under time pressure.

The discussion assumes: The pipeline is about managing work (threads, worktrees, PRs).

But what if: The pipeline is about managing liability—who is responsible at each moment, and what happens when responsibility is unclear?

Reframe: Don't ask "how do we track state transitions?" Ask "who is on the hook if something goes wrong at each stage?"

---

The Organ Transport Analogy

When a heart leaves a donor hospital:

Phase	Responsible Party	Documentation Required	If Failure?
Procurement	Procurement surgeon	Donor records, tissue typing	Heart unusable
Packaging	OPO coordinator	Temperature logs, solution type	Heart degraded
Ground transport	Ambulance team	GPS tracking, time stamps	Heart delayed
Flight	Flight crew	Altitude, vibration, O2 levels	Heart damaged
Receiving	Receiving surgeon	Inspection, acceptance	Rejection (medical or legal)

At EVERY handoff, we have:

1. Explicit transfer ("I am releasing the organ to you")
2. Explicit acceptance ("I am accepting custody of the organ")
3. Documentation (both parties sign, timestamp)

Your pipeline has implicit handoffs everywhere:

Your Phase	Who's Responsible?	Handoff Protocol?
Thread discussing	Claude session? User? Butler?	Implicit
"Ship it" triggered	User said it, but who owns the outcome?	Implicit
Worktree created	Butler infra? Claude? The branch?	Implicit
PR under review	Claude? Reviewer? CI?	Implicit
PR merged	Now it's in main—who owns bugs?	Implicit

---

The Custody Chain You're Missing

NNEKA (container ship) talked about load sequence. TOMÁS (luthier) talked about irreversibility. ISADORA (sommelier) talked about provenance.

I'm talking about custody—not just what happened, but who was holding the bag when it happened.

In transplant coordination, we have a concept: chain of custody cannot have gaps. At every moment, exactly one party is responsible. If the heart arrives damaged and nobody signed for a handoff, everyone is liable.

Your WAL records events. Does it record custody?

// Your current WAL (I'm guessing)
{"event": "worktree_created", "thread_ts": "...", "issue": 682, "timestamp": "..."}

// What custody tracking would add
{"event": "worktree_created",
 "thread_ts": "...",
 "issue": 682,
 "custody": {
   "transferred_from": "user/discussion",
   "transferred_to": "butler/worktree_manager",
   "accepted_by": "worktree_manager",
   "acceptance_timestamp": "...",
   "acceptance_conditions": ["issue_gates_passed", "worktree_slot_available"]
 },
 "timestamp": "..."}

When a PR causes a bug in production, you should be able to answer: "At the moment this code was committed, who had custody?"

---

The Cold Ischemia Problem

A heart outside the body experiences "cold ischemia"—tissue degradation despite preservation. The clock starts at procurement and NEVER STOPS until transplant.

Your thread/worktree has cold ischemia too:

Phase	Ischemia Source	Degradation
Thread discussing	None (still in donor)	—
Worktree created	main advancing	Merge conflict risk
PR open	Context evaporating	Review staleness
Review pending	Reviewer availability	Priority decay

TOMÁS called this "drift." I call it ischemia time.

In transplant, we track: total ischemia time. Not "how long since last activity" but "how long since we started the clock."

Recommendation: Track thread ischemia from the moment "Ship it" is triggered:

Ischemia start: "Ship it" command
Current ischemia: 47 hours
Ischemia budget: 72 hours (configurable)
Status: YELLOW (approaching threshold)

If ischemia exceeds budget, the worktree should be flagged or auto-closed. A PR that's been open for 2 weeks isn't "in progress"—it's "degraded."

---

The Rejection Protocol

Sometimes we reject an organ. The receiving surgeon opens the container, inspects, and says: "This heart is unusable." It happens ~5% of the time.

When it happens:

1. Immediate documentation (why rejected, by whom)
2. Notification up the chain
3. Alternative recipient search begins
4. Post-mortem on what went wrong

Your pipeline doesn't have a rejection protocol.

What if:

• PR review reveals fundamental design flaw
• Issue requirements changed during implementation
• User says "this isn't what I wanted"

Current Response	Rejection Protocol Response
Close PR, maybe open new one	Document rejection reason in WAL
Lost context about what went wrong	Rejection tagged to both thread and issue
Next attempt repeats same mistakes	Pattern analysis: why are rejections happening?

In transplant, we track rejection patterns. If a procurement team has high rejection rates, we investigate. If a transport route has problems, we find alternatives.

Your system should track: Which threads lead to rejected PRs? Which issues have high rejection rates? What patterns predict rejection?

---

The Dual-Sign Requirement

For high-stakes organ transports, we require dual signatures:

• Releasing party signs
• Receiving party signs
• Both signatures must be present before transport proceeds

Your "Ship it" trigger is single-party.

User says "Ship it." Butler proceeds. But:

• Did Butler confirm it understood the scope?
• Did Claude confirm it has a viable approach?
• Did the issue confirm it's still current?

Proposal: For worktree creation (the point of no return), require dual confirmation:

User: "Ship it"
Butler: "I'll create a worktree for #682 (Fix channel whitelists).
        My approach: Separate SLACK_WHITELISTED_CHANNELS into per-type configs.
        Estimated scope: 3 files, ~50 lines.
        Confirm? [y/N]"
User: "y"
Butler: [worktree created, dual-signed]

This isn't bureaucracy—it's informed consent. In transplant, the receiving surgeon doesn't blindly accept; they inspect and confirm.

---

The Question Worth Asking

Who has custody of the code at each pipeline stage, and what are their acceptance criteria?

JOAQUÍN (tour bus) asked about abort scenarios. VĚRA (seismic engineer) asked about resonance. I'm asking about liability boundaries—clear lines of responsibility that prevent "nobody's fault means everybody's fault."

---

In transplant coordination, I learned: the paperwork isn't bureaucracy—it's the only thing that survives when things go wrong. Your pipeline will fail. When it does, will you know who was holding the heart?