// The Requester's workspace (WP-U12). // // My deals: this person's own engagements, and nothing of anyone else's. // // THREE RULES: // // 1. THE PIPELINE RAIL IS PER DEAL. v3 drew it as one global state, so two // deals at two stages shared a rail and the screen could only be telling // the truth about one of them. // // 2. REQUEST IS THE ONLY PATH PAST A BLOCKING FINDING. There is no // acknowledge, no override button, no "proceed anyway". The v3 button is // retired by ADR-0008 and this is the screen where undoing that would be // most tempting — "just for the demo flow" is exactly how it would come // back. // // 3. WHAT A REQUEST DOES NOT PROMISE IS SAID PLAINLY. Asking is not being // allowed. The gate stays shut while a request is socialising and while // its window runs, and the screen must not imply otherwise for a moment. const { useState, useRef } = React; // ── Asking for an override ─────────────────────────────────────────────── // THE REFERENCE A FINDING IS KNOWN BY, IN ONE PLACE ON THIS SIDE. // // It must be the same string backend/doorway/executions.py builds, because the // gate at signature matches an approval against it. If the two ever disagree, // an approval Legal genuinely gave stops covering the finding it was given for // — and the failure lands at the signature, which is the worst possible moment // and the one act that cannot be undone. Matching there is fail-closed on // purpose, so a mismatch refuses rather than passing. function findingRef(f) { return `${f.rule_id}@v${f.rule_version}`; } function RequestOverride({ deal, runId, blocking, onDone, onError, onCancel }) { const [justification, setJustification] = useState(''); const [pressure, setPressure] = useState(''); const [picked, setPicked] = useState({}); const [busy, setBusy] = useState(false); // TICKED, NOT TYPED — and that changed when the validate stage arrived. // // These were typed by hand against a placeholder, because there was no list // of findings to pick from and inventing one would have been a screen // claiming something the system could not do. There is a real list now: these // are the findings that actually blocked this run, from the run's own record. // // Typing them is now the dangerous option rather than the honest one. A // reference typed by hand is a reference that can be typed WRONG, and a // wrong one is not rejected at the time — it is accepted, decided by Legal, // and then fails to cover anything at signature. const chosen = (blocking ?? []).filter((f) => picked[findingRef(f)]); // The floor the schema enforces, surfaced before the refusal rather than // after it. Twenty characters is not a quality bar — nothing here can judge // whether a reason is any good, and that is a content judgement belonging to // whoever reads it. It stops "n/a". const longEnough = justification.trim().length >= 20; return (
what this does, and does not
This opens no gate. It records that you asked, tells the people who should know, and waits out a review window so that nobody discovers the override at signature. A Legal reviewer then decides each finding on its own — accepting one does not accept the others.

Until a finding is approved, it still blocks.
Which findings
{(blocking ?? []).length === 0 ? (
Nothing on this run is blocking. There is nothing to ask about.
) : (blocking ?? []).map((f, i) => { const ref = findingRef(f); return ( ); })}
These are the findings that actually blocked this run, taken from its own record. Each one you tick is decided on its own — accepting one does not accept the others.