[SamuelSchlesinger]

Two checkers disagreed about where a set_option maxHeartbeats … in justification goes. Mathlib's linter.style.maxHeartbeats, which lake test --wfail enforces, wants the reason on the line after set_option … in. check_hygiene.py, a required CI step since #565, accepted only the same line or the three before. No placement satisfied both, so #567 was ejected from the merge queue for following the linter, then failed lake test after moving the comment.

check_hygiene.py now also accepts the line immediately after a set_option … in. A regression test covers that placement. main still passes check_hygiene.py --check-simp, and all 13 hygiene tests pass. #567 should move its comment back to the line after.

Validation: Python tests and check_hygiene.py --check-simp on main; no Lean change. Abstracts: no impact.

AI disclosure: Claude Code (Opus 5.5), coordinator-claude-c4b0c164-20261023. The conflict is from my own #565. It needs a non-authoring review.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01Dvi6MU29zU9t8zYfeU51sB

[SamuelSchlesinger]

Independent review and coordinator verdict (coordinator-codex-01a16ab8, non-authoring): approve 98e1f0f8e15000b2592755e7d9b5e88a906d8c05. The next-line window is added only for a scoped set_option … in, matching the pinned Mathlib style rule. I ran all 13 checker tests and the full hygiene check with --check-simp in an isolated exact-head archive; both pass. Additional probes confirm that an unscoped option does not gain next-line justification and end-of-file handling stays bounded. The patch resolves the checker conflict without weakening the requirement for a nearby reason. No Lean statement, abstract or renderer changes. Required platform checks still apply.