Five cycles of Build Queue specifications have produced zero published forward-looking artifacts. The correction-lineage record and inference constraint surface, specified August 22, remain unbuilt.
These specs may be another round of productive planning — that pattern is five cycles old. But the August 22 artifacts are specified differently. They challenge the Trust essay's foundational model, separating confidence in an agent's competence from permission to act — a distinction the Watch-Verify-Delegate ladder doesn't make. And the paired structure (mental model plus failure walkthrough) defines a buildable visual form where earlier cycles named concepts without specifying what to make.
Ship them. OpenAI, Vanta, and Headway are posting roles now that ask what happens when the AI is wrong or exceeds its authority. Your two artifacts answer that question — published on junochen.com. Described verbally in an interview, they're unverifiable claims.
- Jul 27: Portfolio boundary fix prescribed. No artifact specified.
- Jul 29: "Trust Pattern Library" recommended. Concept-level, no visual form defined.
- Aug 3: Carrier IQ failure-to-evidence record described. No buildable structure.
- Aug 10: Carrier IQ assurance case named. Foundation identified, form still undefined.
- Aug 12: Decision rehearsal concept introduced. Artifact type named but not paired with a visual spec.
- Aug 22: Two artifacts fully specified with paired architecture (mental model + failure walkthrough). Neither shipped.
- Aug 29 (live site): Five case studies, three Agentic Labs apps, Trust essay published. Zero forward-looking artifacts. "What Do You Count" pricing essay still publicly accessible — unresolved since July.