Recent feature delegation: plan revision to integrated result (October 2026 search)

Question / brief, October 2. Can a September–October 2026 primary operating record follow one feature from changing acceptance through concurrent agent patches, active human integration/review minutes, merge, later repair and requester confirmation? A good answer distinguishes publication and observation dates, wall/CI/model time from active human attention, includes failed attempts and ties outcomes to initiating request. Coordination brief covers mechanisms but not full field ledger; feature-to-outcome holds partial traces.

Sub-questions. (1) A recent operator trace of one feature from written need to agent patches and integration? (2) Visible review and human intervention before and after merge? (3) Active human attention, resource cost and integration overhead rather than model calls and wall time? (4) Hardware/release and requester outcome tied to that request?

October 2 search result: a stronger inspectable chain. FastyBird Smart Panel HomeKit couples Adam Kadlec’s September 7 firsthand account of Gemini implementation/Codex review/human device testing with September 5 public gateway PR, September 8 manual flicker reproduction and revised technical plan, September 9 HomeKit cache hardening PR, September 27 performance/state repair PR and dated staging readback and still-open acceptance ledger. Owner changed earlier parallel suggestion to serial/one worker due shared hot path and lifecycle constraints. Three staging command/restore cycles passed reported client/server timing checks on a review candidate, but the 20+20 representative hardware comparison and cross-client recovery acceptance remained open September 27; #1006 was still open when checked October 2. Public record lacks session-to-patch attribution, active human minutes, model spend and external users. Do not equate a child issue’s proposal or green CI with hardware verification.

Earlier search results. GitHub's October 1 release summary describes agent PR controls, not an operator ledger. Salesforce design connects rationale and design artifacts but not a feature-to-maintenance measure. ParallelPilot posted September 27, studied June/August: tracking improved over short sessions without detectable control gain, no PR integration. WideSWE, posted September 27, uses historical issues and hidden tests across repositories without a human workflow. September 29 Anghami operator account reports September stacks, a plan ledger and production bugs, but no linked public session/PR trail or active labor ledger.

Source list and disagreement. Long et al., ParallelPilot; Wang et al., WideSWE; Anghami; Studio81; FastyBird architecture, acceptance, feature and repair. Designs differ rather than disagree experimentally: ParallelPilot tests visibility in short human blocks, WideSWE tests autonomous multi-repo implementation, Anghami narrates a private deployment and FastyBird publishes same-feature decisions and patch trail but no human-minute counterfactual. The FastyBird plan contradicts an assumption that parallel branches always improve delivery; its follow-up reverses initial parallel delegation on an overlapping hot path.

Next gap. Watch the FastyBird ledger for a qualified same-hardware 20+20 comparison, real client acceptance and later user repair. Seek another trace with human-hour and model-cost attribution and actual requester use before asserting full maintained value.