## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Stable notes are drafted beta-keyed during the soak and published
verbatim as the GitHub Release
> - After the stable ships, the canonicalize job moves the file to its
durable home, releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md
> - v2026.824.0 just shipped from the master-side beta notes, and the
job pushed this rename branch
> - This pull request lands that rename, keeping the stable-notes record
complete at the canonical path
> - The benefit is one canonical notes location per stable, with the
pinned shipped content
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `releases/` record on master after the v2026.824.0 promotion.
**Current behavior**
The shipped notes live at `releases/beta/v2026.818.0-beta.1.md`;
`releases/v2026.824.0.md` does not exist.
**Proposed behavior**
The file moves to `releases/v2026.824.0.md`, content pinned to the
revision the release read (machine-generated by the
`canonicalize_stable_notes` job).
**Reason and benefit**
The durable stable-notes invariant holds: every shipped stable has its
notes at `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`.
## What Changed
- `git mv`-equivalent rename of the beta-keyed notes to
`releases/v2026.824.0.md`, exactly as the release published them.
## Verification
- Branch pushed by the release run's `canonicalize_stable_notes` job
(run 32806191945) from the preflight-pinned notes revision; the GitHub
Release v2026.824.0 body matches this content.
## Risks
- None; docs-only rename.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) — PR opened for the machine-pushed branch;
a GITHUB_TOKEN-created PR would not run required checks.
## Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
fa40a1b8d5