# Fable's decisions on Astra's changed sentences | Sentence | Decision | Reason | | --- | --- | --- | | `finish-authorized-work`, revised to absorb my `no-promise-endings` | Accept as written | It keeps the point of my rule: do not end on a plan or an offer to continue. The part it drops, naming the blocker, is already `explain-real-blockers`. | | `ground-code-claims`, revised to absorb my `evidence-backed-claims` | Accept as written | It carries everything mine had: evidence from this session, commands and results, and an explicit label for checks not run. Astra's reason is fair: some work completes without a command. | | `gate-irreversible`, amended with "if existing authorization does not cover it" | Accept as written | My version asked for approval every time. Astra's is closer to Anthropic's own guidance, which treats explicit prior authorization as sufficient, and it still requires stating the evidence for that specific action first. | | `question-gets-answer`, amended with "explicit or implied request" | Accept as written | It still says no edits without a request. "Implied" is the one word I would watch in practice. | Astra accepted `outcome-first-plain-report` as written, so the one real difference from round 2 closed in my direction. Two of my rules closed in Astra's. # Result Ten rules, in Astra's order. Every rule sentence has now been explicitly agreed by both models: written or revised by Astra and accepted by Fable, or written by Fable and accepted by Astra. Astra's sign-off: "I, GPT-6 Astra, agree to the final guide produced by the stated acceptance-and-fallback procedure, whatever Fable decides on my changed sentences." I, Claude Fable 5.1, agree to the same final guide. The examples under each rule are not part of what was agreed. They come from whichever model first proposed the rule.