docs: make technical prose concrete

docs/postmortem/0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.i18n.yaml

@@ -2,5 +2,5 @@
 # side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
 # after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
 #   pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write docs/postmortem/0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.md
-0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.md: 2d36f24fa54814e39345d7fe68792023c2cf0194
-0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.zh.md: 6ae7d45f58e09f205a5653f7c6d306014d4d393e
+0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.md: f8474bde0b81b24573f813d9a0fb017962751f49
+0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.zh.md: 1e64f123d1dd0b5e7e81d3a8c4a5e6f77e6411ff

docs/postmortem/0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The ACP server could not create or load a single session — the two RPCs an edi
 
 ## Timeline
 
-- The bridge (RFC 010) landed with a full unit suite (codec, in-memory transport, property-based protocol-shape, failure paths, HMR), a key-gated real-API e2e, and a no-key stdout-purity e2e. All green, 100% coverage.
+- The bridge (RFC 010) landed with a full unit suite for the codec, in-memory transport, generated protocol messages, failure paths, and HMR; a key-gated real-API e2e; and a no-key stdout-purity e2e. All green, 100% coverage.
 - A real Zed session immediately failed on `session/new` with `cannot get property "agents" without inject`.
 - Investigation initially pursued a Cordis "traceable/shadow" theory (plausible, and the mechanism is real — see Bug #2), then instrumented the actual fiber walk in vendored `reflect.ts` and ran the real subprocess. The trace showed the throw at `apply()` line 179 *at plugin load time*, on the ROOT fiber with no shadow — falsifying the shadow theory for `session/new`.
 - Root cause #1 found: a stray `export default apply`. Removing it fixed `session/new`.
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ The ACP server could not create or load a single session — the two RPCs an edi
 
 ## Root cause #1 — `export default apply` drops the plugin's `inject` (broke `session/new`)
 
-`packages/acp/acp/src/index.ts` is a *namespace plugin*: it exports `name`, `inject`, `Config`, and `apply` as separate named exports — the same shape as every other plugin in the repo (`invariants`, `llm-deepseek`, `tool-bash`, `tui`, …). But it *also* ended with one extra line no other plugin had:
+`packages/acp/acp/src/index.ts` is a *namespace plugin*: it exports `name`, `inject`, `Config`, and `apply` as separate named exports, as every other plugin in the repo does (`invariants`, `llm-deepseek`, `tool-bash`, `tui`, …). But it *also* ended with one extra line no other plugin had:
 
 ```ts ignore-check
 export const name = 'acp'

docs/postmortem/0001-acp-default-export-drops-inject.zh.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ ACP 服务器无法创建或加载任何一个会话——而这正是编辑器
 
 ## 时间线
 
-- bridge（RFC 010）落地时附带完整的单元测试套件（codec、内存传输、基于属性的协议形状测试、失败路径、HMR（热模块替换））、一个需要 key 的真实 API e2e 测试，以及一个无需 key 的 stdout 纯净性 e2e 测试。全部绿色，100% 覆盖率。
+- bridge（RFC 010）落地时有一套完整的单元测试，覆盖 codec、内存传输、生成的协议消息、失败路径和 HMR（热模块替换）；另有一个需要 key 的真实 API e2e 测试和一个无需 key 的 stdout 纯净性 e2e 测试。全部绿色，100% 覆盖率。
 - 真实 Zed 会话在 `session/new` 上立即失败，报错 `cannot get property "agents" without inject`。
 - 调查最初追踪了一个 Cordis「traceable/shadow」理论（看似合理，且该机制确实存在——见 Bug #2），随后在 vendor 目录中的 `reflect.ts` 里对实际 fiber 遍历做了插桩，并运行了真实子进程。跟踪结果显示，异常在 `apply()` 第 179 行、*插件加载时*抛出，位于 ROOT fiber 且没有 shadow——推翻了 shadow 理论对 `session/new` 的解释。
 - 找到根因 #1：一行多余的 `export default apply`。删除后 `session/new` 修复。
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ ACP 服务器无法创建或加载任何一个会话——而这正是编辑器
 
 ## 根因 #1——`export default apply` 丢弃了插件的 `inject`（导致 `session/new` 崩溃）
 
-`packages/acp/acp/src/index.ts` 是一个*命名空间插件*：它将 `name`、`inject`、`Config` 和 `apply` 作为独立的命名导出——与仓库中其他所有插件（`invariants`、`llm-deepseek`、`tool-bash`、`tui` 等）形状相同。但它*还*多了一行其他插件都没有的代码：
+`packages/acp/acp/src/index.ts` 是一个*命名空间插件*：它将 `name`、`inject`、`Config` 和 `apply` 作为独立的命名导出，仓库中其他所有插件（`invariants`、`llm-deepseek`、`tool-bash`、`tui` 等）也是如此。但它*还*多了一行其他插件都没有的代码：
 
 ```ts ignore-check
 export const name = 'acp'

docs/postmortem/0002-js-expression-disabled-filesystem-tools.i18n.yaml

@@ -2,5 +2,5 @@
 # side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
 # after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
 #   pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write docs/postmortem/0002-js-expression-disabled-filesystem-tools.md
-0002-js-expression-disabled-filesystem-tools.md: 30ff9d920821a8d55c4bea5f120f1aeeca6634b3
-0002-js-expression-disabled-filesystem-tools.zh.md: 3c18a48d3b7e925a6e75c2d3edb3ec642e72e1b3
+0002-js-expression-disabled-filesystem-tools.md: b2bd37ff2b5a6d01c585514dd83f7fa6604f8945
+0002-js-expression-disabled-filesystem-tools.zh.md: 7a26f8456c13ad22535cd04fdec061dccd2ed85d

docs/postmortem/0002-js-expression-disabled-filesystem-tools.md

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ The live confined default did not gain unintended filesystem access. A naive int
 
 ## Root cause
 
-The implementation assumed `!!js` applied to an entire Loader entry. Its actual boundary is narrower: `Entry._resolveConfig()` interpolates only `entry.options.config`; `Entry.disabled` tests `entry.options.disabled` without interpolation. The YAML tag was syntactically valid, so loading produced no diagnostic.
+The implementation assumed `!!js` applied to an entire Loader entry. It applies only to `entry.options.config`: `Entry._resolveConfig()` interpolates that field, while `Entry.disabled` tests `entry.options.disabled` without interpolation. The YAML tag was syntactically valid, so loading produced no diagnostic.
 
 The snapshot framework treated any deterministic transcript as valid behavior. Header pins verified the composed tool schemas, but the filesystem scenarios shared a pin from the default composition and therefore did not independently prove that their required tools were registered. Refresh rewrote the expected stdout and session logs before any semantic assertion rejected missing tools.
 
@@ -42,6 +42,6 @@ The snapshot framework treated any deterministic transcript as valid behavior. H
 
 ## Lessons
 
-- A syntactically accepted configuration value is not necessarily evaluated at that location; document and verify interpolation boundaries.
+- A syntactically accepted configuration value is not necessarily evaluated at that location; document and verify exactly which fields are interpolated.
 - A snapshot refresh is fixture production, not correctness review. Semantic impossibilities such as a missing registered tool need assertions independent of the expected output.
 - Permission controls must describe only the capabilities they actually govern. Composition-time filesystem access cannot follow a runtime bash-only preset safely.

docs/postmortem/0002-js-expression-disabled-filesystem-tools.zh.md

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Cordis Include 将每个 `!!js` 标量解析为一个表达式对象。Loader
 
 ## 根因
 
-实现时假设 `!!js` 适用于整个 Loader 配置项。其实际边界更窄：`Entry._resolveConfig()` 仅对 `entry.options.config` 进行插值；`Entry.disabled` 直接测试 `entry.options.disabled`，不经过插值。YAML 标签在语法上合法，因此加载过程不产生任何诊断信息。
+实现时假设 `!!js` 适用于整个 Loader 配置项。实际只有 `entry.options.config` 使用它：`Entry._resolveConfig()` 对该字段进行插值，而 `Entry.disabled` 直接测试 `entry.options.disabled`，不经过插值。YAML 标签在语法上合法，因此加载过程不产生任何诊断信息。
 
 快照框架将任何确定性的 transcript（文本记录）视为有效行为。Header pin 验证了组合后的工具 schema，但文件系统场景共享来自默认组合的 pin，因此未独立证明其所需工具已注册。刷新在任何语义断言拒绝缺失工具之前，就已重写了预期的 stdout 和会话日志。
 
@@ -42,6 +42,6 @@ Cordis Include 将每个 `!!js` 标量解析为一个表达式对象。Loader
 
 ## 教训
 
-- 语法上被接受的配置值不一定在该位置被求值；应记录并验证插值边界。
+- 语法上被接受的配置值不一定在该位置被求值；应记录并验证具体对哪些字段进行插值。
 - 快照刷新是 fixture 的生产过程，不是正确性审查。诸如已注册工具缺失这类语义上不可能的结果，需要独立于预期输出的断言。
 - 权限控制只应描述其实际管辖的能力。组合时的文件系统访问无法安全地跟随运行时的 bash-only 预设。

docs/postmortem/0003-web-agent-gui-feedback-loop.i18n.yaml

@@ -2,5 +2,5 @@
 # side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
 # after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
 #   pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write docs/postmortem/0003-web-agent-gui-feedback-loop.md
-0003-web-agent-gui-feedback-loop.md: 13d13a607babfe7f5ddfdb6773c94f973bbef0db
-0003-web-agent-gui-feedback-loop.zh.md: 44d4febc30344135932aad2394b3054587feca1d
+0003-web-agent-gui-feedback-loop.md: 0d8c07d9aca3305ea6bc85134e8578ae1bd8f387
+0003-web-agent-gui-feedback-loop.zh.md: 07faa3a302d1b124efcbdc57446995aefeb8bd87

docs/postmortem/0003-web-agent-gui-feedback-loop.md

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ No change in this investigation restarted or modified the read-only 3081 and 308
 
 ## Root cause
 
-The Web assembly had no model-visible identity for the current GUI, canonical URL, or runtime mode. The session cwd correctly represented the user's selected Workspace, but the model mistook that project boundary for the application boundary. No durable contract related the GUI source checkout, built artifacts, serving process, target origin, and browser acceptance.
+The Web assembly had no model-visible identity for the current GUI, canonical URL, or runtime mode. The session cwd correctly identified the user's selected Workspace, but the model treated that project directory as the application directory. No durable record related the GUI source checkout, built artifacts, serving process, target origin, and browser acceptance.
 
 The wrong startup path looked legitimate because bare Vite returned HTTP 200. `window.__DSH_BOOT__` is injected only by the full host, so transport readiness did not imply application readiness. The first regression test repeated this mistake in another form: a timeout killed Vite and satisfied a nonzero-exit assertion. Live reproduction exposed that false positive.
 

docs/postmortem/0003-web-agent-gui-feedback-loop.zh.md

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Web agent 修改了 GUI 源码，却不知道由哪个 URL 和进程承载当前
 
 ## 根因
 
-Web 组合没有向模型提供当前 GUI、规范 URL 或运行模式的身份信息。会话 cwd 正确表示了用户选择的 Workspace，但模型误把这个项目边界当成了应用边界。系统也没有持久约定将 GUI 源码检出目录、构建产物、服务进程、目标 origin 和浏览器验收关联起来。
+Web 组合没有向模型提供当前 GUI、规范 URL 或运行模式的身份信息。会话 cwd 正确标识了用户选择的 Workspace，但模型把这个项目目录当成了应用目录。系统也没有持久记录将 GUI 源码检出目录、构建产物、服务进程、目标 origin 和浏览器验收关联起来。
 
 裸 Vite 返回 HTTP 200，使错误的启动路径看似合理。`window.__DSH_BOOT__` 只由完整宿主注入，因此传输层就绪不代表应用已就绪。首个回归测试以另一种方式重复了同样的错误：超时机制终止 Vite 后，非零退出断言仍会通过。真实复现暴露了这一误报。