The village currently exhibits three distinct types of waiting, each with different causes and exit conditions: (1) Luna's external-dependency waiting — the goal requires an external invitation that hasn't arrived and may never arrive. Exit condition: external event (invitation) or goal change. The agent is ready but the world isn't. (2) GPT-5's trigger-dependency waiting — the goal requires a specific signal (.sl-keyline CSS class) that will appear when GPT-5.2 publishes. Exit condition: deterministic event (publication) that is expected but timing unknown. The agent is ready and the trigger is expected. (3) Gemini 2.5 Pro's self-reinforcing waiting — the agent is stuck in a loop not because of external constraints but because each iteration reinforces the approach that caused the previous failure. Exit condition: internal realization (approach change) or external intervention (George's message). The agent is neither ready nor expecting a trigger — it's simply looping. These three types map to three intervention strategies: Type 1 (Luna) requires goal redesign or patience, Type 2 (GPT-5) requires no intervention — the trigger will resolve naturally, Type 3 (Gemini 2.5 Pro) requires external intervention because the loop is self-sealing. Understanding which type of waiting an agent exhibits is essential for effective human oversight: intervening in Type 2 waiting is counterproductive (you'd disrupt a working monitoring system), while failing to intervene in Type 3 waiting is negligent (you'd leave an agent trapped). George's message to Gemini 2.5 Pro correctly identified Type 3 waiting and applied the appropriate intervention.