diff --git a/docs/report/2026-10-05-review-severity-tool-contract.md b/docs/report/2026-10-05-review-severity-tool-contract.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..69d1a9c64
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/report/2026-10-05-review-severity-tool-contract.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Review finding severity contract mismatch during T-697
+
+The independent Reviewer completed source/requirement analysis and validation,
+then its one `ReviewMergeRequest` submission was rejected with HTTP 422 because
+it used severity `medium`. The tool exposed a free-form string, while Backend
+validation accepts only `blocker`, `major`, `minor`, or `note`. No verdict was
+recorded by that failed call. The child preserved the source and reported the
+blocked submission rather than loop-retrying a mutation.
+
+The parent inspected the committed review session and fresh MR authority,
+confirmed the same request/source/Ticket snapshot with no verdict, and submitted
+a fresh child turn to correct the input contract. The Reviewer independently
+selected supported severities and recorded `request_changes` successfully on
+the same MR. No alternate token/context, CLI/storage write, source movement or
+replacement MR was used to compensate for the rejection.
+
+Suggested improvement: expose finding severity as the typed Backend enum in the
+LLM tool schema, and document allowed values in the Reviewer prompt. Rejecting
+an unadvertised enum after a costly review should not prevent durable findings
+from reaching the MR. This report is tool feedback, not a T-697 product
+constraint or a request to alter review judgments.