The seam — packages out, artifacts back
Studio composes a self-describing package — context, ask, constraints, return address — Claude Code or Codex works it locally, and the result returns and unpacks into the Project as recorded artifacts with provenance. Composition (4a), the in-flight state (4b), return and unpacking (4c), failure and retry (4d), and the moment of acceptance — argued for gold (4e).
Composing the package — said in Chat, shown as a card
Elias tells his ally what needs doing; the ally assembles the package and reads it back whole before anything leaves — the consent-precedes-collection pattern, applied to work. The card is the package: four parts, nothing hidden.
Claude Code or Codex is a choice stated on the card, not a setting: the send chip names the agent and the machine. The protocol is the same package either way — modeled on the dispatch protocol Kinship runs between its own sessions.
In flight — what the Field shows while an agent works elsewhere
The Field tells the truth about elsewhere: the work isn't in the room, so it doesn't render in the room — the package waits at the edge, facing the machine it went to. Its slow breathing is the only motion (period 3.2s, MOTION-ADDENDUM-R7).
Progress is sentences, not percent. The agent's own status lines, relayed verbatim through the band when they change. If the agent goes quiet, the card says how long it's been quiet — a fact, not an alarm.
Work continues around it. Nothing locks; both members keep working. The package is a thing in the room's life, not a spinner over it.
Return — the package unpacks into recorded artifacts
Provenance is the artifact's surname: every Record born from a package carries "via [agent] · pkg #N" forever — in the card, in the Field's object labels, in anything that later cites it. Machine work is never laundered into member work.
Both directions, same grammar: a package can also arrive from the local agent — Claude Code proposing work it noticed while inside a granted workspace. It lands exactly like a return: draft, cited, awaiting a member's word.
Failure — told plainly, retried by hand
Three failures, one grammar: constraint met (shown) · agent unreachable (the in-flight card states the silence and offers recall) · return rejected by the server (contents outside the package's own declared scope — the one case the server refuses, stated as which constraint the return violated). All three are sentences and choices, never red banners.
Retry is always a new package citing the old one. History accumulates; nothing is overwritten; the Project's package thread reads like correspondence, because it is.
Acceptance — argued for gold
PROPOSED · the fourth signed act — flagged, OQ-2The argument: accepting returned work is the moment machine output becomes the organization's record under a member's name. That is precisely what a signature is for — not the work (the agent did that), but the vouching. R7 builds acceptance as press-and-hold with the gold ceremony, and flags it: it would be the fourth signed act at launch.
The case against (stated honestly, OQ-2): launch canon holds gold to three acts, and acceptance will happen dozens of times a day — ceremony repeated hourly risks devaluing the ring. The alternative: acceptance as a recorded act with light, gold reserved for a Project's completion. R7 builds gold and recommends watching the frequency in practice.
Who signs: any member whose grant says "accept" — here Elias for work-in-progress, Moto where the duna's own record is touched. The grant names it; the card states whose name goes on.