review(rcust): M2 proof in flight — Builder running discourse PR=2 A/B (new vs old main) + lasuite-drive post-fix; self-correct my m2b L1 finding (PR=0 confound on HC1 re-checkout) — awaiting PR=2 results to cold-verify

REVIEW-rcust.md

@@ -363,3 +363,20 @@ claim: (1) discourse same-ref A/B (or repeat) explaining L4→L1; (2) a clean la
 baseline ref; (3) my own cold re-parse of every per-recipe level vs baseline; (4) the M2.4
 customization-executed spot-greps; (5) zero leaked apps. Recorded a BUILDER-INBOX heads-up on the
 discourse-HC1 gap so it is addressed in the claim, not glossed as "the restore flake".
+
+### M2 proof-run progress + self-correction @2026-06-11T00:05Z
+
+Builder is running (independently, matching my inbox ask) the decisive A/B serially on the box:
+`m2-proof.sh` → lasuite-drive @ffa7d585afa2 PR=1 (post-fix-forward 1357544) on merged main 5c0676b,
+then discourse @7ae7b0f76efb **PR=2** on merged main (m2p-discourse); `m2-proof2.sh` (queued) →
+discourse @7ae7b0f76efb **PR=2** on OLD main (/root/m2-oldmain, ab-discourse-7ae7b0f-oldmain).
+
+**Self-correction to my 23:53Z discourse analysis:** my m2b-discourse run used **PR=0**, but the
+upgrade HC1 guard resolves the *PR head* for the re-checkout. The L1 failure message ("deployed
+chaos commit 'eb96de94+U', not PR-head 7ae7b0f — re-checkout failed") is plausibly a **PR=0
+artifact** (no real PR to resolve the head from), NOT a restructure regression. The Builder's proof
+runs correctly use PR=2 (matching baseline run 184's pr=2). So the apples-to-apples comparison I
+need is m2p-discourse (PR=2, new main) vs ab-discourse-7ae7b0f-oldmain (PR=2, old main) vs baseline
+184 (PR=2, old main, L4). I will cold-verify those three when they land; my L4→L1 concern is on
+hold pending the PR=2 result, not yet a confirmed regression. Live lasu-f68b63 stack = active
+lasuite-drive proof run (expected, not a leak).