### expert_build/propose.py:cmd_propose_beliefs
VERDICT: CONCERN
CORRECTNESS: QUESTIONABLE
SPEC_COMPLIANCE: N/A
ISSUE_COMPLIANCE: ADDRESSES
BELIEF_COMPLIANCE: CONSISTENT
TEST_COVERAGE: PARTIAL
INTEGRATION: WIRED
REASONING:
The move to incremental batch writing is a significant improvement for robustness and UX when dealing with long-running LLM processes. However, there are two issues in the implementation:

1.  **Marking Failed Batches as Processed (Line 413):** The function calls `_save_processed(processed_path, entries, processed)` at the very end. Since `entries` contains all files intended for processing, it marks every file as "done" even if one or more batches failed during the loop (due to the `try...except` block on line 384). This results in "silent" data loss: the user won't see the beliefs from the failed batches, and subsequent runs will skip those entries unless `--all` is specified.
    *   *Recommendation:* Accumulate a list of `successful_entries` within the loop and only pass those to `_save_processed`.

2.  **Filtering Regex Inconsistency (Line 391):** The regex `r"^### \[?(?:ACCEPT|REJECT)\]? (\S+)"` matches `### [ACCEPT] id` or `### ACCEPT id`. However, the prompt and the file header (line 359) use the placeholder `[ACCEPT/REJECT]`. If the LLM returns beliefs with this placeholder (as shown in the `test_propose.py` mocks), the regex will not match, and the deduplication filter will fail to skip existing beliefs.
    *   *Recommendation:* Update the regex to handle the `[ACCEPT/REJECT]` placeholder: `r"^### (?:\[?(?:ACCEPT|REJECT)\]?|\[ACCEPT/REJECT\]) (\S+)"`.

---

### tests/test_propose.py
VERDICT: PASS
CORRECTNESS: VALID
SPEC_COMPLIANCE: N/A
ISSUE_COMPLIANCE: ADDRESSES
BELIEF_COMPLIANCE: N/A
TEST_COVERAGE: COVERED
INTEGRATION: WIRED
REASONING:
The new test file provides good coverage for the incremental writing logic.
*   `test_proposals_written_after_each_batch` correctly verifies that earlier batches survive a crash in a later one.
*   `test_existing_beliefs_filtered_per_batch` verifies that the filter logic works correctly when it encounters matched IDs.
*   *Note:* The tests do not check the state of the `proposed-entries.json` file after a failure, which is why the bug in `_save_processed` wasn't caught.

---

### SELF_REVIEW
LIMITATIONS:
- I do not have the full content of `PROPOSE_BELIEFS` in `expert_build/prompts.py`, so I am assuming the model output format based on the source code comments and test mocks.
- I haven't seen the implementation of `_filter_unprocessed`, but its impact is clear from the context of `cmd_propose_beliefs`.

### FEATURE_REQUESTS
- It would be useful to see the content of referenced prompt constants (`PROPOSE_BELIEFS`) to verify regex compatibility.
- Including the state of "tracking files" (like `.json` databases) in observations when they are modified by the functions under review would help catch state-persistence bugs.
