2nd-reviewed before the close: 0 confirmed · 0 disputed · 0 never 2nd-reviewed. Details in Independent verification.
Only closures of issues the sweeper proposed to close. Weeks start Monday.
No closures yet.
Each bar is one close reason — the same merged rows as the verdicts page's verdict distribution (structured reason first, legacy close labels folded in; the label-free close is implemented on main). Right label: acted-on / proposals. "Closed otherwise" counts closures without the sweeper's comment — correlation, not proven adoption; blue splits out the likely-fixed-instead closes, which the sweeper doesn't claim at all. Newer proposals have had less time to be acted on, so compare reasons with similar proposal ages cautiously.
A blinded second review re-judges duplicate and implemented-on-main close proposals before anyone acts (the dashboard's "2nd review" badge). "Disputed" is a dispute to read, not a proven error — the blinded judge sees less context than the original review. Coverage counts open proposals (the verify sweep's selection universe); stale stamps (the record was re-reviewed since verification) are excluded from the mix, and live issue drift is re-checked by the nightly verify sweep, not this page. Scope is these two close reasons only.
duplicate: 121 of 121 open proposals verified — implemented-on-main: 77 of 77 open proposals verified
Duplicates by the canonical's kind, implemented-on-main by claim kind (hover a row label for the lane). Right label: disputed / verified — a kind disputing well above its peers is a calibration signal for the review prompt.
The 71 disputed proposals are listed on the dashboard (the link lands pre-filtered); each ✗ badge carries the verifier's evidence. A dispute is worth a manual look before acting: either the review or the verifier is wrong, and both readings are on record.
Counts, not rates — closed-after-verification volume is still small, so percentages would mislead. A disputed proposal closed anyway and later reopened is a false positive the verify lane flagged in advance.
| 2nd-review verdict | Still open | Closed since | Reopened after a close |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmed | 122 | 0 | 0 |
| disputed | 71 | 0 | 0 |
| unverifiable | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Closes that went ahead after the 2nd review refuted the proposal — either the human knew better (the dispute is advisory) or a false positive slipped past the warning; both readings are on record. The before-the-fact twin of the reversals queue below.
None yet.
Close proposals whose closure was later reversed (the issue reopened) — none so far. A reversal of a sweeper-comment close is the strongest false-positive signal the pipeline produces — worth a manual look (and a feedback issue) each. A reopen isn't automatically a wrong verdict: issues also reopen to track follow-up work or get re-closed differently.
Attribution: poster of the matched comment, else who closed the issue.
| User | Closures | With sweeper comment |
|---|---|---|
| None yet. | ||
Every reviewed issue that closed, by what the review had concluded. Only the propose-close row is claimed by the funnel above; needs-info issues auto-close on their own cadence, and keep-open closures happened for unrelated reasons (worth eyeballing as a precision check).
| Review verdict | Closed |
|---|---|
| keep-open | 1 |
| Close reason | Closed |
|---|---|
| completed | 1 |