# Phase 164: Hypothesis Route Transition Authority Surface

## Status

completed

## Goal

Close the next post-`v1.89` gap by turning transition commitment into an
operator-visible transition-authority surface.

## Background

AITP already has:

- question-level `competing_hypotheses`
- bounded `route_activation`, `route_reentry`, `route_handoff`, and
  `route_choice` visibility
- bounded `route_transition_gate`, `route_transition_intent`,
  `route_transition_receipt`, `route_transition_resolution`,
  `route_transition_discrepancy`, `route_transition_repair`,
  `route_transition_escalation`, `route_transition_clearance`,
  `route_transition_followthrough`, `route_transition_resumption`, and
  `route_transition_commitment` visibility

But it still lacks one explicit place to say:

- whether the committed route has become the authoritative truth across the
  bounded runtime surfaces
- which durable artifacts establish that authority
- how that authority relates back to the current commitment state
- how that authority coexists with the current helper mechanisms

## Requirements

- derive one bounded route transition-authority summary from route transition
  commitment plus current route artifacts
- expose route-transition authority through runtime/read-path/replay surfaces
- keep the transition-authority surface coexistence with current
  transition-commitment and helper mechanisms
- add one isolated acceptance lane for the bounded transition-authority path

## Depends On

Phase 163 (`v1.89` route transition-commitment visibility must remain closed
and available as the base layer)

## Deliverables

1. hypothesis route transition-authority runtime surface
2. replay/read-path visibility for explicit bounded transition-authority state
3. isolated acceptance and aligned docs/tests

## Plans

- [x] `164-01`: add route transition-authority summary to runtime/replay
  surfaces and isolated acceptance
