# Brief: P7 edge-door plan, review round 2

Round 1's brief is `CODEX-REVIEW-BRIEF-P7-EDGE-DOOR.md` and its findings are
`CODEX-FINDINGS-P7-EDGE-DOOR.md`, both beside the plan. The plan,
`docs/superpowers/plans/2026-09-28-instance-moves-p7-edge-door.md`, is now
revision 2. It opens with a table giving each round-1 finding's disposition.

1. **Disposition table first.** For each of the ten round-1 findings, say in one line whether revision 2's fix actually closes it (closed / partly / not closed), and why where it isn't closed.
2. **Then only new findings,** ranked P1/P2/P3, each with the failure scenario and a fix. Look especially at what revision 2 introduced:
   - the console database as authority and the unconditional publish;
   - the revision high-water state file, and its behaviour on a fresh box, after data loss, and when the console's revision counter restarts;
   - the door-hop MAC and the `door` capability flag in edges files;
   - enforcement moved into `ServeHTTP`, including the ordering against the tunnel and steering branches and the re-read of the door mark after `acceptHop`;
   - `openDoor` lifecycle placement.
3. The rulings in the design record's §0 are fixed. Don't re-argue them, or round-1 dispositions marked accepted, unless the fix itself is wrong.
4. Check every `path:line` you cite against this checkout.

End with one line saying whether the plan is ready to build. Keep it under about 1,500 words.