Review infrastructure enrichment

[Svaag]

Summary

• mark generated/enriched/infrastructure as human-reviewed advisory synthesis
• preserve authority: advisory and dispute_policy: repo_wins
• regenerate exports, quality, and eval reports

Validation

• uv run ruff check src tests
• uv run mypy --strict src
• uv run pytest
• uv run hyrule-knowledge validate okf
• uv run hyrule-knowledge quality --check
• uv run hyrule-knowledge export --check
• uv run hyrule-knowledge eval --check
• uv run hyrule-knowledge ledger --check
• uv run hyrule-knowledge ledger lifecycle --check
• uv run hyrule-knowledge scan-secrets okf exports reports evals ledger schema

Notes

This does not promote generated synthesis to canonical truth. It remains advisory and subordinate to source repositories.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0a304d5fec

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Keep the reviewed notice consistent

With review_status promoted here, the document body still starts with Review status: proposed and says to treat it as advisory until human-reviewed. When agents or humans consume the markdown/body excerpt for this infrastructure enrichment, they will see the opposite status from the frontmatter/exported concept, so this review promotion remains ambiguous; update the body banner like the reviewed services enrichment or keep the status proposed.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.