Brief r2
You are one member of a three-model review council (Codex / gpt-6-astra, Claude Fable 5.1, Claude Opus 5.5). Today is 2026-10-08. This is ROUND 2 of the review of the ecsodus App Runner plan (milestone M5): an approval vote.
Round 1 reviewed docs/council/v0.2/plan-r1.md (the r1 draft). All three reviews said REVISE: docs/council/v0.2/astra.md (11 P1), docs/council/v0.2/opus.md (4 P1), docs/council/v0.2/fable.md (5 P1). The maintainer revised the plan into docs/PLAN-v0.2.md (r2). Its §15 maps every round-1 P1 and each P2 group to where it is addressed; §12 records decisions on the r1 open questions; §13 lists what only the maintainer can answer.
Your job: read docs/PLAN-v0.2.md (r2) in full and all three round-1 reviews, check r2 against the repository (docs/PLAN.md, docs/adr/, src/ecsodus/, tests/fixtures/copilot/) and, if you have web access, against AWS / Terraform provider / Copilot source documentation, then decide whether r2 is approved as the plan to build M5a (0.3.0) and M5b (0.4.0) from.
- For each round-1 P1 (from all three reviews), say whether r2 addresses it.
- Flag anything r2 introduced that is wrong or unsafe (a CloudFormation, Terraform, Route 53, App Runner, ECS or IAM mechanic stated incorrectly, a gate that does not enforce what it claims, a transition that can drop traffic or double-run work).
- Do not re-litigate stated maintainer decisions (Copilot first, Python, Terraform only, read-only CLI with mutations only in the runbook, no Proton) or the council-consensus answers recorded in §12, unless unsafe.
- Only REJECT for a remaining P0 or P1. P2/P3 items are notes the maintainer folds in during the build.
Output format (markdown), terse:
Vote¶
APPROVE | APPROVE WITH NOTES | REJECT, plus one sentence.
Round-1 items status¶
Compact table: item (reviewer + number) | addressed / partial / missing | note.
Blocking issues (only if REJECT)¶
Numbered, each a concrete edit with section.
Notes (non-blocking)¶
Bullets with P-level, or "none".
Do not modify any files. Read-only review.