The security document claimed the CI workflow "is least privilege" because it declares `permissions: contents: read`. That is not true on the server this repository actually uses. The inventoried server is Gitea 1.24.2, and its official comparison page lists `permissions` / `jobs.<job_id>.permissions`, `concurrency`, and `jobs.<job_id>.timeout-minutes` under unsupported workflow syntax — verified against https://docs.gitea.com/1.24/usage/actions/comparison rather than assumed. On this server those keys are inert, so the branch cannot claim the in-job GITEA_TOKEN is read-only, and cannot claim YAML-enforced timeout or concurrency behavior. Job-token permission controls, repository/owner defaults, and server-side maximum-permission clamping arrive in the 1.26 feature line (https://docs.gitea.com/1.26/usage/actions/token-permissions). The document now separates what is actually true of this repository — full-SHA action pins, frozen-lockfile install, no pull_request_target, no referenced secret, `persist-credentials: false` on every checkout, and the declared `permissions` block — from what the server enforces. It also states precisely what `persist-credentials: false` proves: checkout leaves no credential in `.git/config` for a later step, which is not the same as removing or reducing the job token. The CI blockers are recorded: upgrade to a reviewed supported release, configure repository/owner defaults and a maximum permission, prove against the real server what the token cannot do, move timeout/cancellation/ teardown into the trusted provisioner and reaper, and finish the disposable-guest proof before opening the real pull request. The workflow keeps every declaration — they are already correct for a supported Gitea release and for GitHub Actions — and gains a comment saying plainly that this server ignores them, so no future reader mistakes them for enforcement. Nothing about runners, proxies, firewalls, or deployment is asserted here. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>