docs: Exit 42 als Haltung und die Adoption eines neuen Templates nachgezogen (#119)

Files changed:
- CHANGES.md
- VERSION
- docs/ownership-and-templates.md
- docs/why-gates-are-code.md

CHANGES.md

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ concern - readable here, never shipped as something to parse.
 
 ---
 
-## 7.0.0-beta.7 - 2026-09-20 - Doku-Nachzug zu #119: die Verpflichtungsschicht erreicht Installation, Setup und docs/
+## 7.0.0-beta.8 - 2026-09-20 - docs/-Nachzug: Exit 42 als Haltung, und die Adoption eines neu ausgelieferten Templates
 
 **Author:** Torben Nehmer
 
@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ concern - readable here, never shipped as something to parse.
 
 **Low impact**
 - new project: Testabdeckung fuer die required-responsibility-Ablehnung
+- docs/-Nachzug: Exit 42 als Haltung, und die Adoption eines neu ausgelieferten Templates
 <!-- /wikitool:bumps -->
 
 ### Typ `project` und Collection `kb/gtd/`: das Vorhaben als eigene Seitenart
@@ -268,6 +269,27 @@ Seitentyp oder eine neue Collection (Type-Spec/`COLLECTION.md` + `kb/CONTRACT.md
 Adoptionspfade). Die Zeile zur `docs/`-Begruendung sagt jetzt zusaetzlich, dass eine Entscheidung
 ohne Seite die eigentliche Luecke ist, weil Begruendungen aus einem Issue nie ausgeliefert werden.
 
+### docs/-Nachzug: Exit 42 als Haltung, und die Adoption eines neu ausgelieferten Templates
+
+Die Abschlusspruefung dieses Kandidaten (`stack-close` Schritt 3) hat zwei `docs/`-Seiten gefunden,
+deren Begruendung die Pakete #124/#126 bzw. #123 verschoben hatten, ohne dass jemand sie nachzog -
+beide unpruefbar, weil eine `docs/`-Seite per Konstruktion keinen normativen Satz traegt.
+
+- **`docs/why-gates-are-code.md` kannte Exit 42 nur als Gate.** Die Seite oeffnet mit „vier harte
+  Grenzen", und seit #124/#126 verlaesst `HumanInterventionRequired` denselben Code, ohne eine
+  fuenfte Gate zu sein. Neuer Abschnitt „Exit 42 is a posture, and it outgrew the gates": die vier
+  Gates teilen eine *Weigerung* (die Operation waere moeglich, das Werkzeug fuehrt sie
+  unbesehen nicht aus), der neue Fall ist das Gegenteil (die Operation ist gar nicht moeglich, kein
+  Token koennte das aendern) - gemeinsam ist beiden nur, was der Exit-Code tatsaechlich sagt:
+  anhalten, einem Menschen zeigen, nichts umgehen. Dazu die verworfene Alternative, die Luecke in
+  der Instruction-Schicht zu beschreiben - genau die Prosa-Regel, gegen die diese Seite argumentiert.
+- **`docs/ownership-and-templates.md` beschrieb die `.template`-Kategorie nur von innen.** „Wird
+  von einem Upgrade nie geschrieben" stimmt weiterhin fuer eine bereits adoptierte Datei; der Fall,
+  dass ein Release ein Template fuer einen Typ liefert, den die Instanz noch *gar nicht* hat, stand
+  nirgends - und genau der ist seit #123 der Grenzuebertritt. Die Kategorie nennt ihn jetzt als die
+  eine Gestalt, in der „das Upgrade schreibt diese Datei nie" zu Arbeit wird, mit Verweis auf den
+  Schritt in `upgrade-instance.md`, den Stack 7.0.0-beta.7 dort angelegt hat.
+
 ---
 
 ## 6.2.0 - 2026-09-19 - Entity-Subtyp project nach codebase umbenannt

VERSION

@@ -1 +1 @@
-7.0.0-beta.7
+7.0.0-beta.8

docs/ownership-and-templates.md

@@ -149,7 +149,15 @@ becomes visible once an upgrade is a command rather than a hand-run copy:
 - **`.template`-sourced files** - `USER.md`, `SOUL.md`, `kb/CONVENTIONS.md`, each
   `kb/<name>/COLLECTION.md`, `ENVIRONMENT.md`, the `root: kb` type-specs - are never written by
   an upgrade at all. The distribution ships only the `.template` beside them, so the filled file
-  is out of reach by construction rather than by a rule someone has to remember.
+  is out of reach by construction rather than by a rule someone has to remember. The same
+  property has a second face on the way in: when a release ships a `.template` for a type or
+  collection the instance does not have *yet*, the upgrade writes the template and stops - it
+  cannot write the filled file without deciding the instance's own language and wording for it.
+  Adoption is therefore an act the instance performs, and where the stack *requires* that type
+  (the `source` idiom, and `project` since 7.0.0) an upgrade that skips it leaves a tree
+  `docs verify` refuses. That is the ownership boundary working rather than a gap in it, but it
+  is the one shape in which "the upgrade never writes this file" turns into work somebody has to
+  do; `instructions/upgrade-instance.md` carries the step.
 - **Seeded-once files** - `.wikitool-kb.json`, `CHANGES.md`, `kb/log.md`, `raw/.gitkeep` - are
   written into a *new* instance by `dist export` and belong to the instance from then on. They
   are the awkward category: they sit in the release stamp's file list like any other shipped

docs/why-gates-are-code.md

@@ -7,6 +7,16 @@ one trips, are in [AGENTS.md § Gates](../AGENTS.md#gates) and
 [instructions/gates.md](../instructions/gates.md). This page is only about the design choice
 underneath them: why code, and why these four mechanisms in particular.
 
+<!-- wikitool:toc -->
+## Contents
+
+- [A suggestion an agent can talk itself past](#a-suggestion-an-agent-can-talk-itself-past)
+- [Why four different mechanisms, not one](#why-four-different-mechanisms-not-one)
+- [Exit 42 is a posture, and it outgrew the gates](#exit-42-is-a-posture-and-it-outgrew-the-gates)
+- [A gate in code still has to be reachable](#a-gate-in-code-still-has-to-be-reachable)
+- [Numbers that come from measurement, not intuition](#numbers-that-come-from-measurement-not-intuition)
+<!-- /wikitool:toc -->
+
 ## A suggestion an agent can talk itself past
 
 An instruction like "don't publish too much at once" or "don't loop forever" lives in the same
@@ -51,6 +61,28 @@ The Iteration Budget Gate asks a fourth kind of question - not "is this instance
 itself (call count, repeated identical calls), not from anything about the content of any one
 call.
 
+## Exit 42 is a posture, and it outgrew the gates
+
+Those four are the named gates, and they are not the only thing that exits 42 any more. When the
+task-tracker provider layer arrived, it brought a case that looks like a gate from the outside and
+is not one: a provider whose API cannot create a project (Super Productivity's local REST API
+reads projects but does not write them) raises `HumanInterventionRequired`, and the command prints
+what a human has to do and exits 42.
+
+Reusing the code was deliberate, and so was not calling it a fifth gate. What the four gates share
+is a *refusal*: the operation was possible and the tool declined to perform it unreviewed. This is
+the opposite situation - the operation is not possible at all, and no token could make it
+possible. What the two have in common is only what the exit code actually communicates: **stop,
+show this to a human, do not improvise a way around it.** That sentence is the whole meaning of
+42 here, and it is worth more as a shared convention than as a number reserved for one mechanism.
+
+The alternative was worse in a specific way. A provider that cannot do something could have been
+described in the instruction layer instead - "if you are on this tracker, create the project by
+hand first" - which is exactly the prose-shaped rule this page argues against, with the added cost
+that every instruction would then have to know which provider an instance runs. The capability
+gap belongs where the capability is, and reaches the session as an exit code rather than as a
+paragraph it has to remember to apply.
+
 ## A gate in code still has to be reachable
 
 Code beats prose for the reason above, but on its own it buys less than it looks like: a check