# LazyCodex Implementation Summary: Core OSS Fixture

## Input Contract

LazyCodex receives the GJC planning output, the high-friction Boulder pipeline, and the generated `BOULDER_EXPORT.md` for `examples/mcp-server`.

## Implementation Lane

This case study records the implementation lane as a bounded handoff surface, not a claim that LazyCodex was launched by Boulder core.

Expected executor behavior:

1. Read the accepted GJC scope.
2. Implement only the fixture-level change approved by the plan.
3. Return a summary of changed files, validation commands, and unresolved risks.
4. Refuse scope expansion that bypasses Boulder verify or CSO/QA.

## Validation Contract

LazyCodex must provide:

- changed-file list
- test or smoke command output
- manual QA evidence path
- rollback notes
- unresolved limitations

## Result for This Public Case Study

No production fixture mutation is claimed here. The evidence demonstrates the reusable contract: Boulder classify, GJC plan, LazyCodex implement, Boulder verify, then release/application packet assembly.

This is intentionally conservative for the Codex OSS packet: the artifact proves orchestration design and handoff shape without overstating external executor availability.