chore(loop): drop the nonexistent sender.author_association claim test

scripts/loop/README.md

@@ -920,12 +920,21 @@ the first `auto` run is a verification step rather than a milestone.
       comment, then apply the claim label — were no-ops, and the only remaining
       entry was `workflow_dispatch`, which hits the same claim check.
       `humanClaimOf` (`shared/route.mjs`) now recognises exactly that event —
-      `issues.labeled`, the claim label, applied by an OWNER/MEMBER/COLLABORATOR,
-      out of `waiting-human` — and `doRun` moves the task to `ready` (timeline
+      `issues.labeled`, the claim label, out of `waiting-human`, applied by
+      anything that is not a bot — and `doRun` moves the task to `ready` (timeline
       `claimed`, labels refreshed from the event) before claiming it. Narrow on
       purpose: D29's repair path, `start --task` and PR `synchronize` still cannot
       convert an inbox item, so the cognitive guard is unchanged and only an
       explicit human act opens it.
+      **The first version of the predicate failed in production** on the very next
+      run: it gated on `event.sender.author_association`, but `author_association`
+      is a field of the issue, not of the sender (`simple-user` has no such field),
+      so the check was `undefined` and the run still logged
+      `skip: task #77 not claimable (status=waiting-human)`. Permissions need no
+      local test anyway — editing labels requires triage/write access, so the
+      event's mere existence is the maintainer's act; the predicate now excludes
+      only bots. Lesson recorded because the shape is easy to repeat: verify a
+      payload field against a real event payload, not against a hand-written one.
 
 ## Environment facts
 

scripts/loop/shared/route.mjs

@@ -87,8 +87,15 @@ export function humanClaimOf({ eventName, action, event = {} }, status) {
   if (eventName !== 'issues' || action !== 'labeled') return null;
   if (event.label?.name !== CLAIM_LABEL) return null;
   if (status !== 'waiting-human') return null;
-  if (!OWNER_ROLES.includes(event.sender?.author_association ?? '')) return null;
-  return event.sender?.login ?? 'a maintainer';
+  // Who may apply it is settled by GitHub, not by this predicate: editing labels
+  // needs triage/write access, so the existence of an `issues.labeled` run is
+  // already a maintainer's act (a `GITHUB_TOKEN`-raised one never runs at all).
+  // Only bots are excluded. Do **not** test `sender.author_association`: that
+  // field lives on the issue, not on the sender, so the first version of this
+  // predicate could never be true and #77 kept skipping (D37).
+  const sender = event.sender ?? {};
+  if (sender.type === 'Bot' || String(sender.login ?? '').endsWith('[bot]')) return null;
+  return sender.login ?? null;
 }
 
 /**