Record the three unresolved branches instead of guessing

README.md

@@ -548,6 +548,11 @@ The same pattern applies to any per-instance daemon: per-instance
 home/socket/identity, prod is the one service, dev is a manual run on a distinct
 home.
 
+Three branches on `origin` are neither merged into `main` nor known to be
+obsolete, so `git branch --merged` will never retire them. Before you tidy them
+away, read [docs/unresolved-branches.md](docs/unresolved-branches.md) — it says
+what is known, what is not, and why deleting them on a guess is the wrong trade.
+
 ## Commands
 
 ```sh

docs/unresolved-branches.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Unresolved branches on `origin`
+
+Three remote branches are neither merged into `main` nor safe to assume are
+obsolete. This note exists so the next person meets a recorded fact instead of a
+puzzle.
+
+| Branch | Commit | Size against `main` |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `agent/production-sync-scan-counters` | `24a0fd8` Expose production sync scan counters | 7 files, +234 / −32 |
+| `agent/reliable-shell-sync-noop` | `a5671e9` Restore shell compatibility and skip converged scans | 8 files, +1078 / −91 |
+| `agent/suppress-sync-self-events` | `558f094` Suppress delayed sync self-events | 1 file, +551 / −38 |
+
+Measured on 2026-08-04 against `main` at `5999384`.
+
+## What is known
+
+Each branch is a single commit. None is an ancestor of `main`, so
+`git branch --merged` will never list them and ancestry alone will never retire
+them.
+
+They belong to the `af8fb02` line — the four pull requests (#25, #26, #28, #29)
+that were **not** merged into `main` directly. That line was instead absorbed by
+a separate reconciliation, which preserved the behaviour while arriving at it by
+a different route. `main` is therefore *believed* to contain the substance of
+all three.
+
+## What is not known
+
+**Nobody has proven that.** "Absorbed by a different route" is a claim about
+behaviour, not about commits, and no one has gone branch by branch to confirm
+that every change in each one is represented in `main` today.
+
+The diffs are large and `main` has moved a long way since, so a three-dot diff
+answers nothing on its own: it shows divergence from a shared ancestor, not
+missing behaviour.
+
+## Why they are still here
+
+Deleting a remote branch that is not an ancestor of `main` is **not reversible
+for anyone but the person who still has it locally**. Keeping a branch costs
+nothing. Tidiness is not worth an irreversible action on evidence that is only
+probably right.
+
+Verifying equivalence is real archaeology and needs judgement per branch. Nobody
+needs these branches today, so that cost has not been paid.
+
+## What to do if you care
+
+Do not delete them on the strength of this note. Either prove per branch that
+`main` covers the behaviour — and record the proof here — or leave them alone.
+If you prove it, say which commit in `main` covers each one, then delete.