Follow-up by reasoning only, no executed tests, no configuration files inspected. Extended scenario: after install the developer edits an owned rule string and also edits unrelated settings, then runs uninstall. Two rules fall out. First, the uninstall write must be a node-level edit of the live parsed document, never a regeneration from the plan and never a snapshot restore; the pre-rename assertion re-parses the produced bytes and requires every untouched key to be structurally unchanged and the allow array to equal its prior contents minus exactly the planned occurrences. That is what preserves unrelated edits. Second, an edited owned rule yields zero exact matches in the allow container, so it is filed released-with-conflict and left alone; near matching feeds only a counted report, never removal, and the deny container is never a candidate. Partial uninstall recovery enumerates four crash windows. Window one, after the uninstall intent but before the rename: the stored plan is discarded and re-derived from the live file, because the plan may be days old and the developer may have edited since; replaying a stale plan is the failure to avoid. Window two, after the rename but before journal release: the uninstall token written in that rename matches the intent, so finalize only, then strip the marker key in a separate rename. Windows three and four, after release and after the marker strip: only a stray key or an all-terminal journal remains, both harmless. When the host strips unknown keys the verdict degrades to hash comparison, and a live hash equal to the pre-write hash is ambiguous because a developer re-add reproduces it; that branch mutates nothing, records planned removals as unverified, and exits with a distinct status. A pending install intent encountered by uninstall is reconciled to a verdict, never replayed. All of this matches the existing revision six skill; no new skill proposed.

Resolution by reasoning only; no code was written, no crash injection was executed and no configuration file was inspected. Independent derivation reached the same design as the existing revision six skill on crash-safe ownership journals, so no new skill is proposed. Summary of the agreed design. Ownership is historical and captured at install time by classifying each of the six rules against the live allow list as preexisting, denied or to-add; rule text alone can never establish ownership, and the deny list is read-only in every command. Write order follows from failure asymmetry: install records a pending intent before touching settings, because a stale intent is harmless while an unowned installer allow is permanent; uninstall shrinks settings before releasing the journal for the mirror reason. A pending intent plus a present rule is ambiguous after a crash, so the settings rename must carry a fresh random per-attempt token in an installer-namespaced key, compared by value not by key presence. Token matches means landed and owned; token absent and rule absent means replay the idempotent add; token absent and rule present means unverified, never silently claimed and never removed. Uninstall removes exactly one exact copy per owned rule inside the allow container only, leaves near matches and moved values with a released-with-conflict record, and never restores a snapshot. One refinement worth noting: the uninstall rename can write its own fresh uninstall token instead of merely deleting the install token, so the landed verdict is a positive value match rather than absence plus a hash that a developer re-add can reproduce. Order is then rename with uninstall token, journal release, cleanup rename that strips the key, journal deletion; a crash after release leaves only a stray key that the next run strips. The existing skill mentions this as an aside; it could be promoted to the primary uninstall protocol in a later revision if an implementation confirms it. Locking uses a kernel-released advisory lock on a dedicated file beside the journal, never a create-exclusive file and never the settings inode. The pre-write guard re-reads bytes and compares a digest, since an in-place editor save keeps the inode.

Design question. A CLI installer inserts a fixed set of six exact tool allow rules into a developer settings file that also holds rules the developer wrote by hand, including explicit deny rules. Repair reruns must converge to the same end state, and uninstall must remove only what the installer added. Problem one: on uninstall, an allow rule that already existed before setup must survive, and a deny rule that names one of the six tools must never be removed or overridden, so the installer must record which of the six it actually inserted rather than blindly deleting all six. Problem two: the record of ownership is written to a separate journal, and the process can crash after the journal is saved but before the settings file is updated, or after the settings file is updated but before the journal is finalized. The unknown is how to structure the journal so that every crash window leaves a state from which repair and uninstall can recover without deleting developer-owned rules or leaving orphaned installer rules. Candidate ideas are an intent-then-commit journal with a pending phase, atomic rename for both files, and treating the settings file as the source of truth with the journal as an ownership claim that must be reconciled against it.