# Decision Gate

Verdict: **GO**



Now I have all the information needed to make the decision. Let me write the verdict.

---

```
VERDICT: GO
```

### Rationale
All six persona reviews unanimously **APPROVE** the implementation. There are zero CRITICAL or HIGH findings. The two MEDIUM findings (misleading `main_behind_count` variable name and brittle `inspect.getsource()` tests) are cosmetic/maintenance concerns that do not affect correctness or safety. The implementation precisely matches the PRD: `pull_branch()` helper added to `recovery.py` (FR-1, FR-8, FR-9), `restore_to_branch()` pulls with warn-and-continue (FR-2), orchestrator base-branch checkout hard-fails on pull failure (FR-3), preflight replaces fetch+warn with pull (FR-4), all paths gated by offline flag (FR-5), thread-fix is confirmed not to pull (FR-6), and `_ensure_on_main()` is refactored to use the shared helper (FR-7). All 3,081 tests pass with 75 new tests covering success, failure, offline, no-upstream, and timeout scenarios.

### Unresolved Issues
- MEDIUM: `main_behind_count` variable name is now slightly misleading since the pull targets the current branch, not necessarily `main`. Cosmetic; does not affect behavior.
- MEDIUM: Two `inspect.getsource()` tests are fragile to future refactoring. Pragmatic tradeoff acknowledged by all reviewers.

### Recommendation
Merge as-is. The two MEDIUM items can be addressed as follow-up cleanup if desired but are not blockers. The security engineer confirmed no new attack surface is introduced, and the `--ff-only` strategy correctly preserves history integrity.
