[Membership]: TEST PERSONA — dry-run review cycle (M7)

[Hassan0703]

GitHub handle

test-persona (NOT a real applicant — M7 dry-run, see comment thread)

Summary of contributions with links

TEST DATA — no real contributions exist for this persona. This issue exists solely to exercise the §20 review cycle (ack → human review → decision + label → close). Nothing here represents a real membership request, and no invitation will or should be sent.

Areas of interest

TEST DATA — dry-run only.

Governance read

• TEST: acknowledgement of the Governance read checkbox (dry-run only).

[github-actions]

Welcome to Hidden Alchemy — this looks like your first issue here.

Every issue sits somewhere in the lab's pipeline
(IDEA → CONCEPT → ARCHITECTURE → SYSTEM → AUTOMATION → REALITY), and
the label on this issue tells you where. If it carries a
good first issue label it is scoped to under a day with a
testable acceptance criterion in the body.

Before you start:

• How to contribute: https://github.com/Hidden-Alchemy/.github/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
• Community standards: https://github.com/Hidden-Alchemy/.github/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

If you intend to work on this issue, say so here first — that keeps
collisions public instead of silent.

[Hassan0703]

Maintainer review (dry-run) — scoring against §19.1

Criteria check for this submission:

• Recognized Contributor status (§19.1): requires ≥3 accepted contributions spanning ≥1 month. This TEST persona has zero real contributions (declared in the issue body), so it does not meet the entry bar. Not remotely close — this is expected and intentional; the dry-run persona exists only to exercise the process mechanics.
• Form completeness: all required fields present (handle, contributions, interests, governance-read). GitHub handle is a placeholder marked TEST — not verified against any account.
• Privacy/appropriateness: no sensitive data requested or present. Submission is public — consistent with §20.
• Automation observed: labeler added status:triage (fallback, since membership:needs-review is a community-facet label, not a §26 type label); welcome-first-interaction remains the acknowledgement comment.

Conclusion for the dry run: on real data this would be a fast, friendly decline with a written reason (or a "not yet — here is the bar" note). No real-world state was changed by this review beyond comment + labels.

[Hassan0703]

DECISION (dry-run): membership:declined — recorded as comment + label, then issue closed (§20).

Reason (written, per §19.2/§20 decline path): this TEST persona holds no accepted contributions, so it does not satisfy the Recognized Contributor entry requirement. A real applicant in this position would be told exactly this — the bar is earned contribution, and re-applying after meeting it is welcome.

§20.1 onboarding checklist — validated as reference, NOT executed (dry-run). On a real approval this checklist is filled in by the inviting Core Team member on the closed issue:

• GitHub invitation sent — (manual, out-of-band, by Core Team member, never by a workflow per §21)
• Invitation accepted (verified before continuing)
• Added to community team
• Welcomed in the appropriate Discussions category
• Pointed to GOVERNANCE.md and CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md enforcement expectations for members specifically

All five bullets are human-executed by design; the out-of-band invitation step is validated for real at the first genuine approval, which requires a real candidate.