instructions/dev/issue-tracking.md: destructive-step invariants, comment-vs-body authority, rename sweep (#47 Block 1, #29)

Files changed:
- CHANGES.md
- VERSION
- instructions/dev/issue-tracking.md

instructions/dev/issue-tracking.md

@@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ issues at that URL, which is exactly why `dist export` excludes
   moved.
 - Closing one: the body is rewritten to its final state first, and only then
   closed (step 7).
+- A rename or move ships: sweep the open issues for text that assumed the old
+  name or path (§ Renames and other decay in the tracker).
 
 ## Steps
 
@@ -42,6 +44,26 @@ issues at that URL, which is exactly why `dist export` excludes
    specific files or commands involved. An issue that only makes sense to
    whoever wrote it is a note, and notes were the problem.
 
+   **Destructive steps carry the invariant they must not violate.** A body
+   that prescribes a mechanism gets built as prescribed - including its
+   bugs. Where a step deletes, overwrites, resets or moves, name the
+   property that must still hold afterwards, not only the command that gets
+   there. "Remove the working directory, then `git checkout HEAD --
+   <stage>`" is a mechanism; "the content stages must afterwards match
+   `HEAD` exactly, without any untracked or ignored file being touched" is
+   the same instruction plus its test - a build instruction and an
+   acceptance criterion at once, so the defect surfaces while the test is
+   written rather than in review afterwards. #30's `upstream merge` body
+   wrote the mechanism and got exactly that bug: a working-directory removal
+   that took a stage's gitignored, unrecoverable data with it.
+
+   **An acceptance criterion states a checkable property, not an activity.**
+   "Implement X" is done when someone says so; "after `upstream merge`,
+   `reports/` still holds every file it held before" is done when it is
+   true. This is not a ban on imperative steps - a numbered procedure can
+   still produce a correct control flow, and that is its merit - it binds
+   the destructive steps, and every box in the criteria list.
+
 2. **The body is the working state, not a historical first post - keep it
    current as you go.** It is this stack's plan file: the same thing a harness's
    own plan document is, and it is maintained the same way. Not written once,
@@ -73,6 +95,32 @@ issues at that URL, which is exactly why `dist export` excludes
    Body rewrites and comments are an LLM session's job. A human normally
    touches only labels and metadata directly.
 
+   **Reading an issue, the body is the state and comments are history.** A
+   session picking an issue up reads the body as the spec; comments are read
+   for provenance - why something was decided, what was tried - never as
+   the current instruction. A recommendation in a comment can be older than
+   the body's decision and read just as convincingly: on #30 an earlier
+   comment recommended a smaller, `verify`-only command, while the body had
+   since settled on building the full `merge` command. A session trusting
+   the comment would have built the wrong thing, with a plausible
+   justification out of this repo's own tracker.
+
+   **A body that is demonstrably wrong is corrected first, not worked
+   around.** "Body beats comment" is a rule of precedence, not a licence to
+   execute a stale spec. Where a comment or the tree proves a claim in the
+   body false, the body is rewritten before the work starts - the rewrite
+   above is the fix; leaning on the comments as the "real" state is not.
+   #10 is the case: its body claimed coverage had never been measured while
+   three comments carried a percentage, a statement count and a CI run
+   number.
+
+   **Where two comments contradict each other, evidence decides, not
+   recency.** On #10, one comment showed a retrieved artifact with zero
+   items on a finished run - the report was not actually retrievable - and
+   a later comment declared the same criterion met without re-checking. The
+   later comment is not the newer truth, only the unchecked one. Resolve it
+   into the body with the evidence named, or mark the point open.
+
 3. **Comment a changelog, never a copy.** A body rewrite gets one short comment
    naming only what changed against the previous state - what is new, what is
    gone, what was corrected. Do not snapshot the old body into a comment: a full
@@ -180,6 +228,27 @@ issues at that URL, which is exactly why `dist export` excludes
    shipped. Nothing mechanical catches it (see below), which is why it is a step
    rather than a habit.
 
+## Renames and other decay in the tracker
+
+A rename is not finished when the tree is green. Renaming a package, a path,
+a command, a flag or the repository itself moves text that lives outside the
+working tree, and the open issues are the largest such text. Nothing catches
+them - `wikitool` does not know this tracker exists and must not learn (see
+"What no tool checks" below) - so a pass over the open issues is part of the
+rename, in the session that did it, not a follow-up someone remembers.
+
+Distinguish a wayfinder from a piece of evidence: a path meant to point at
+where something *is* gets pulled through; a path quoted for what was true at
+a time is left standing and dated. Note per corrected body what was pulled
+through and when, so the next pass can tell a checked body from one that
+merely looks right. Closed issues are out of scope - they guide nobody.
+
+Renames are not the only thing that ages an issue text. A page a body cites
+can vanish from `kb/` (`wikitool search` against the cited titles is the
+second pass), and an old body can carry private infrastructure detail into
+what is now a public tracker - both found in the same issue, both worth the
+same look.
+
 ## What no tool checks
 
 `wikitool` does not know this tracker exists, and should not learn. It ships to