docs(overhaul): stop owner S4-c2 repair after retail review

Record a094bf2b7 as behaviorally retail-clean but unlanded because the binding evidence/prose contract failed. Preserve the sequential-review stop: the production lens did not run, no graphical gate ran, and G3/G4 remain unpassed.

docs/research/2026-09-01-overhaul/2026-09-04-s4-handoff.md

@@ -97,19 +97,21 @@ every deviation gets a register row in the same commit.
   chamber; the zoomed-out FRONT view from the stairwell (hall arches + sky);
   #458's far-block admission (AD-118, 0.5 % edge-plane precision).
 
-## 3. S4 chunk 2 — owner-authorized repair, still UNLANDED
+## 3. S4 chunk 2 — owner-authorized repair STOPPED, still UNLANDED
 
 **Binding current state (supersedes the historical procedure later in this
 section):** lead contract `ac74fbd84` added packet §12. Final implementation
 `c4cbc1d0d` passed its implementer matrix, then both lenses failed for the
-defects recorded in packet §13. The stop rule fired and no chunk commit was
+defects recorded in packet §13. The owner explicitly authorized one repair;
-landed or graphically gated. The owner has now explicitly authorized exactly
+packet §14 is its bounded contract and lead commit `a094bf2b7` is the clean,
-one repair attempt; packet §14 is its bounded contract. It fixes opaque-pass
+unlanded evidence in `s4-c2-impl`. The retail lens found the renderer behavior
-membership, exact CLIP blend/alpha-reference/depth state and row-3 override,
+correct but returned FAIL on the binding evidence/prose contract: the commit
-rejection-bounded source scratch, whole-leaf/RHI production pins, allocation
+body did not enumerate all 14 mutation failures; one packet mutation names the
-truth, and AP-238/AP-240/result prose. Any new code/test/register finding after
+wrong first assertion; one paired-binary address and four source/test comments
-the §14 reviews stops again; no fourth round is implicit. G3/G4 remain
+are stale. Exact findings are packet §15. The production lens was not started.
-unpassed.
+Because §14 grants no implicit fourth repair, no chunk commit was landed or
+graphically gated. The campaign renderer remains S4-c1 `766f9e749`; G3/G4
+remain unpassed. Resume only by another explicit owner process decision.
 
 **Historical state before the final round (kept for audit; do not execute its
 landing procedure):**

docs/research/2026-09-01-overhaul/s4-depth-alpha-packet.md

@@ -967,3 +967,51 @@ allocation, mutations, scope, register, and gate output. The lead verifies
 every finding. Only dual PASS authorizes landing the complete S4-c2 stack,
 followed by a fresh campaign Release build and the graphical/soak gates. G3/G4
 remain unpassed until those later gates; nothing merges to main before G4.
+
+## 15. Owner-authorized repair review stop (2026-09-04)
+
+The owner-authorized implementation is clean and unlanded at
+`a094bf2b77c3061288185f069fa0b5e494ee8540` in `s4-c2-impl`, on top of
+`c4cbc1d0d` / `cc8e5677a` / `048d5b12f`. The lead independently rebuilt the
+Release solution with zero warnings/errors, reproduced the two real 0-B
+allocation pins, recompiled 24/24 shader pairs, checked the three final SPIR-V
+hashes, inspected the 14-assembly 16,735/16,735 hermetic evidence, and
+re-verified `SetSurface` against both the named pseudo-C and paired executable.
+No graphical client was launched.
+
+The first sequential retail lens found the repaired behavior retail-faithful:
+whole-leaf opaque exclusion, `0x08`/`0x09` CLIP grouping, row-3
+`overrideClipmap=false`, blend ids 2/6 (`ONE/INVSRCALPHA`), references
+100/200, inclusive `GREATER_EQUAL`, depth write, exact shader-reference versus
+building-sentinel separation, detail CLIP state, ALPHA isolation,
+rollback/reset, particle row 5, AP-238, and AP-240 all passed. Its focused
+checks passed 60/60 and 88/88. It nevertheless returned **FAIL** because §14
+requires every evidence/prose claim to be exact and permits no repair after a
+review finding:
+
+1. **MAJOR — commit evidence:** `a094bf2b7` summarizes “14 negative mutations
+   restored” instead of naming every mutation and actual first failing
+   assertion as §14.5 requires. The packet has the list, but the binding
+   requirement says the commit body must carry it.
+2. **MAJOR — mutation truth:** §12 mutation 5 says the `<` → `<=` mutation
+   first fails `Assert.DoesNotContain`; the test actually executes and fails
+   the preceding `Assert.Contains("if (color.a < alphaCutoff) discard;")`
+   first.
+3. **MINOR — address prose:** §12 attributes function 7 / `GREATER_EQUAL` to
+   `0x0059c821`; that call is `SetAlphaTestEnable`. The function call is at
+   `0x0059c838`, as the implementation commit body correctly records.
+4. **MINOR — stale source prose:** `mesh_detail.vert` still says EnvCell always
+   sets and ignores `uParamB=0`; CLIP now passes and consumes 100/255 or
+   200/255. `EnvCellRenderer.Rhi.cs` still says the filtered opaque detail
+   replay includes ClipMap, which the repaired pass filter excludes.
+   `ParticleRenderer.Rhi.cs` still says five pipelines although it creates six.
+5. **MINOR — stale test prose:** `RetailAlphaMeshRouterTests.cs` says ClipMap
+   never reaches `MaskFromTranslucencyKind` from production; mesh particles do
+   at `ParticleRenderer.cs`, consistent with AP-240.
+
+Because the retail lens failed, the production/gate lens was not started.
+Correcting the commit metadata, packet, source comments, and test comment
+would be a post-review fourth repair. §14 explicitly grants no implicit fourth
+round, so the implementation remains unlanded, the campaign renderer remains
+S4-c1 `766f9e749`, and G3/G4 remain unpassed. Resume only by another explicit
+owner process decision.