I read this as a focused Task23 blocker repair - I’ll inspect the required plan, ledger, and predecessor evidence, implement the narrow classifier test-first, then seal and run the specified offline and read-only live verification.


I read this as an implementation task - I’ll isolate Task23’s G1 audit path, add fail-closed historical-artifact validation and tests, then reseal, verify, and run one read-only live preflight.


I read this as implementation - finish the narrow Task23 historical-evidence exception, verify and reseal it offline, then run one read-only live preflight.


I read this as implementation - the G1 repair and offline reseal are complete; live preflight is blocked on missing authenticated inputs.

- Added a scoped Task23 classifier allowing only the three canonical, terminal Task22 owner-history artifacts; all other `owner` paths/content still fail closed.
- Tests passed: Task23 + Task22 callback `102`, customer admin `86`; Ruff and Task23 Ty clean.
- Resealed and independently verified: candidate `4705f564...`, manifest `b8f2699a...`.

I did not consume the sole live preflight: no target-specific G1-G5 checklist or fresh Telegram membership receipt exists. Existing checklists bind other customers. Provide those two authenticated inputs to run the one required `task23_ready` preflight.


I read this as investigation then implementation if needed - locate supported Task21/Task23 checklist and membership-observation workflows, use them without touching live authority, and only add a narrow CLI if no supported path exists.


I read this as focused investigation - the current activation CLI consumes a signed receipt but does not yet show a receipt-generation command, so I am tracing Task21's trusted observation path and Task23 command contract before deciding whether the allowed narrow addition is necessary.


I read this as evidence-contract tracing - I confirmed neither the Task23 command nor the activation gate generates target-bound G1-G5 or Telegram observations, so I am examining the prior live evidence and canonical registry/config state to define a read-only, correctly bound Task23 attestation surface rather than fabricating inputs.


I read this as implementation design validation - the live registry now routes owner review to the owner's private chat rather than a staff group, so the new observer must bind to that exact canonical route and fail closed if Telegram cannot provide the required `getChatMember` evidence; I am reading the checklist and existing Bot API transport contracts before writing the RED tests.


I read this as contract completion - the existing G5 format is an operator attestation rather than an observable system fact, while membership is provider-observable; I am extracting the exact requested authority and G5 parser requirements so the new command requires explicit acknowledgments instead of silently asserting policy facts.


I read this as RED-test preparation - the exact Task23 checklist must carry all six G5 confirmations plus Task23 binding fields, and the observer must not turn the existing private owner route into a fictitious group; I am now pinning the remaining parser rules and profile topology before adding the narrow test cases.


I read this as implementation research - the private route is distinct from the registry owner but remains a one-to-one private chat; I am locating its exact trusted binding, interpreter, and existing readiness parser so the RED tests reject both group substitutions and unbound attestations.


I read this as contract definition - the configured review route is a staff-group topic, not a private chat, so the producer must bind the owner’s group membership exactly and must not mislabel that topology; I am reading the authoritative receipt and CLI contracts before writing RED tests.


I read this as a topology correction - generic activation still derives staff review from the registry’s private owner record, while Task23’s approved owner route is the configured staff group; I am verifying the successor and journal bindings so the new producer can prove the real route without changing generic authority semantics.


I read this as resolving a real contract conflict - Task23’s authenticated owner route is the registry owner’s private DM, which the generic group-only readiness gate cannot represent; I am reviewing the delegated record and parser behavior to make the Task23-only receipt prove private-DM reachability without inventing group membership.


I read this as test-first implementation - the existing receipt schema already supports an exact private-owner scope, provided Telegram returns a normal `getChatMember` status; I will add a Task23-only evidence action that writes bound attestations outside the profile and make synthetic preflight require that binding.


I read this as RED coverage - I am adding the smallest integration test for an explicitly acknowledged, private-route-bound evidence action; it must create no profile authority and emit receipt data that existing activation readiness can consume.


I read this as RED coverage - `apply_patch` is not installed on this workstation, so I am applying the same precise test change through the available safe editor and then running the isolated RED case.


I read this as RED verification - the evidence action is intentionally absent, so I am running its isolated test to confirm the contract fails before implementation.


I read this as implementation - the RED test confirms the missing action; I am adding the narrow producer and its Task23-only checklist binding, with no changes to generic activation or profile authority.


I read this as binding enforcement - the producer now binds to the authenticated private owner route, current successor, registry/config bytes, and consent; I am updating the disposable fixture to supply that exact attestation before exercising the complete contract.


I read this as GREEN iteration - the fixture now models the authenticated private owner route and bound evidence; I am running the focused test to expose only implementation defects in the new action.


I read this as a focused fix - the evidence path reached its authenticated successor check and exposed a missing local role import; I am correcting that import without changing the contract.


I read this as GREEN verification - the missing dependency is corrected, and I am rerunning the isolated evidence contract.


I read this as deterministic-test correction - the test used the live clock while asserting a fixed KST date, so I am pinning the producer clock before rerunning.


I read this as GREEN verification - the test now controls its time source, and I am rerunning the private-route evidence contract.


I read this as regression discovery - the isolated producer passes; I am running the Task23 suite next to find incompatibilities introduced by requiring its evidence binding.


I read this as targeted diagnosis - preflight accepts the fixture but the repeat activation revalidates its binding against changed state; I am comparing the expected binding inputs rather than weakening the enforcement.


I read this as lifecycle correction - the second validation occurs after activation has intentionally rewritten the registry, so its byte hash cannot match pre-activation evidence; I am limiting binding validation to the first, pre-mutation Task23 plan.


I read this as regression verification - evidence is now checked before the only registry mutation and recovery uses its authenticated readiness receipt; I am rerunning the complete Task23 suite.


I read this as contract hardening - the Task23 suite is green; I am inspecting the existing token and transport conventions before adding narrow failure-path coverage, so the producer stays compatible with the project’s authenticated network boundary.


I read this as authority tightening - a checklist must also be paired to the exact digest-verified membership observation, not merely a generic receipt for the same identity; I am binding that digest into Task23 evidence and its synthetic preflight.


I read this as fixture alignment - Task23 binding now includes the provider receipt digest, so I am making the deterministic fixture construct that receipt identity once and reuse it for the checklist and authority.


I read this as end-to-end contract verification - the fixture now pairs the checklist and provider receipt by digest; I am rerunning Task23 before adding focused rejection cases.


I read this as failure-path coverage - the valid action is green; I am adding fail-closed tests for omitted manual acknowledgement and mismatched receipt binding, preserving the profile snapshot in both cases.


I read this as test cleanup - the new rejection test already proves profile immutability via its full tree snapshot, so I am removing a redundant serialization assertion that could make the test brittle.


I read this as focused verification - the two failure paths now assert no evidence output or profile mutation; I am rerunning all Task23 tests.


I read this as static verification - Task23 behavior is green; I am running Ruff on the changed producer, cutover, and Task23 tests to catch formatting and unused-code defects before broader regressions.


I read this as formatting correction - Ruff found only layout changes in the new code and tests; I am applying those precise formatter-equivalent edits, not changing behavior.


I read this as static recheck - the formatter-equivalent changes are in place; I am rerunning Ruff checks and formatting verification.


I read this as type verification - lint and formatting are clean; I am running strict type checks for the changed Task23 producer and cutover before broader Task22/Task23 regressions.


I read this as regression verification - changed-file type checks pass; I am running Task23 plus the Task22 callback/adoption regression suite that protects the preserved historical authority path.


I read this as final offline verification - the Task23 and preserved Task22 callback suites pass; I am checking diagnostics, bytecode compilation, profile-admin regression, environment metadata, and scoped diffs before resealing.


I read this as diagnostics retry - compilation and the profile-admin regression pass; the diagnostics tool rejected absolute paths outside the task workspace, so I am retrying with workspace-relative paths.


I read this as sealed-boundary verification - type checks cover the external workspace because the LSP service is restricted to the task directory; I am reviewing the Task23 reseal scripts and confirming the known immutable Task22 closure result before regenerating only the Task23 seal.


I read this as boundary assessment - the immutable Task22 import-closure test fails exactly on the intentionally preserved old seal after `customer_admin.py` changed, and the profile-local virtualenv has no Ty binary; I am locating existing Task23 negative coverage and the profile type-check entrypoint before the permitted Task23 reseal.


I read this as targeted negative coverage - existing Task23 tests cover historical links and terminal authority, while the new producer needs explicit private-route and output-link guards; I am adding those compact fail-closed cases without expanding production scope.


I read this as completing the combined guard test - the first assertion proves symlink rejection before any observation; I am then retrying with an ordinary external path to prove group-route substitution also fails before observation and leaves the profile unchanged.


I read this as verification of the new guards - the producer now rejects both linked output targets and the staff-group substitution without calling Telegram; I am running Ruff and the full Task23 suite.


I read this as formatting-only correction - Ruff found two layout changes in the new guard test; I am applying them before rerunning the suite.


I read this as verification rerun - the guard test is formatted; I am rerunning static checks and the complete Task23 suite.


I read this as pre-seal verification - Task23 is green with its new fail-closed paths; I am running final scoped type, compilation, and Task22 callback regressions before regenerating the Task23-only seal.


I read this as resealing - scoped gateway type checks and Task22 callback regression are clean; the profile-wide Ty run reports 101 existing diagnostics outside the Task23 change, and the immutable Task22 closure still correctly rejects its older package digest. I am now regenerating and then independently verifying the permitted Task23-only offline seal.


I read this as live evidence collection - the Task23 seal is independently verified, so I am snapshotting the profile and using the new read-only producer once with all explicit acknowledgements to create fresh external evidence bound to the approved private owner route.


I read this as provider-failure diagnosis - the producer failed closed before writing either evidence file, so I am recording the after-snapshot and inspecting only the external run directory; I will not consume the final activation preflight.


I read this as fail-closed diagnostics improvement - the profile snapshot is byte-and-inode identical and no evidence was emitted; I am making provider rejection distinguishable by HTTP status without exposing tokens or response text, then testing that path offline.


I read this as offline test setup - the producer now returns only a redacted HTTP status class for provider rejections; I am reading the existing CLI fixture helper and adding a mocked 400-response contract test.


I read this as offline verification - provider rejection is now redacted and unit-covered without a network call; I am running formatting, type checks, and the Task23 suite before resealing the source change.


I read this as a focused test fix - static checking found the new async observer test lacked its `asyncio` import; I am adding only that dependency and rerunning the same verification.


I read this as precise correction - the assumed import ordering was stale, so I am rereading the test header and inserting the missing standard-library import at its actual location.


I read this as verification rerun - the async test import is corrected; I am rerunning static checks and the Task22/Task23 regressions.


I read this as final reseal - lint, types, compilation, and 107 Task22/Task23 regressions pass after the provider-error refinement; I am regenerating and independently verifying the Task23-only seal again.


I read this as a single justified retry - the sealed code now distinguishes provider rejection from transport failure; I am taking a new profile snapshot and retrying the evidence producer once, with the final activation preflight still reserved for a successful fresh receipt.


I read this as fail-closed completion - Telegram rejected the private-owner `getChatMember` query with HTTP 400, so no fresh authenticated receipt exists and I will not run the reserved final `task23_ready` preflight. I am recording the post-failure profile snapshot and reconfirming the offline seal.


I read this as implementation with fail-closed live validation - the producer and Task23 binding are complete; live evidence remains blocked by Telegram.

- Added Task23 `evidence` action: six explicit acknowledgements, external `0600` attestation/receipt, private-owner route and receipt-digest binding.
- Task23 synthetic preflight now rejects arbitrary or mismatched checklist/receipt evidence.
- Verified: Ruff, Ty, compileall, and `107 passed` Task22 callback + Task23 tests.
- Resealed and verified offline: candidate `10f2cec643e72e8a942bb89a1772ab66952e15ae593abcc514145a4141877a64`.

Live evidence collection failed closed: Telegram rejected the authenticated private-owner `getChatMember` observation with HTTP 400. No checklist or receipt was emitted; before/after profile hashes and inodes are identical. The final `task23_ready` preflight was not run, preserving it for valid fresh evidence.

Known retained constraint: the immutable Task22 closure test rejects the changed `customer_admin.py` digest, as expected; its historical seal was not modified.


I read this as narrow diagnosis and correction - I will preserve the final preflight, trace the Telegram contract and authenticated Task23 receipts, test a fail-closed supported evidence path, then collect only supported read-only evidence and preflight once.


I read this as hypothesis gathering - the API contract confirms `getChatMember` is only guaranteed for other users when the bot is an administrator of the target chat; I am now reading the authenticated Task23 journal/outbox and configured staff route to distinguish private-route proof from staff-membership proof.


I read this as scope design - the live authority shows the owner identity is shared between the private DM and configured staff group `-1004484458766`, confirming the prior call queried a non-member customer against a private chat. I am tracing persistence and journal verification so the correction preserves post-activation checks.


I read this as a hypothesis decision - H1 is strongest: the request had the documented parameter order but asked about customer `8527916639` in owner `8693203710`'s private chat, where the customer is not a member and the bot is not an administrator. H2 remains testable by using integer IDs in staff-group calls; H3 is contradicted by authenticated journal/outbox proofs; H4 will be tested on the configured group.


I read this as implementation - I am adding a read-only Task23 primitive that reauthenticates the committed generation-29 owner receipt/callback and the journal-bound customer inbound route, plus a parser for the configured staff-group route.


I read this as provider-action correction - the new action will leave private-route authentication to revalidated committed receipts and journal evidence, then use `getChat` plus integer-ID `getChatMember` calls only on the configured staff forum for owner and customer.


I read this as activation binding - evidence will now be accepted only when the checklist’s authenticated private-route proofs and configured staff-group route exactly match both current Task23 state and the authority used to validate the fresh membership receipt.


I read this as test-first contract migration - I am updating the synthetic Task23 authority to mirror production’s private owner plus separate staff forum, then asserting the provider receives integer group/user IDs and the checklist binds both local private proofs and the group receipt.


I read this as exact-error contract - I am replacing the status-only test with a deterministic 400 payload that asserts the recorded method, integer parameter types, redacted description, error code, and request/response timing while excluding the token.


I read this as contract verification - the synthetic fixture now carries generation-29 owner proof, inbound message `124`, and group scope. I am running the focused Task23 suite to identify the remaining binding or test-interface gaps before adding the live-supported observer test.


I read this as fixture correction - production has inbound message `124`, while the synthetic fixture intentionally uses its local start message `101`; I am asserting the authenticated session claim rather than hard-coding a production receipt into the test.


I read this as supported-observation coverage - I am adding an offline contract test for exactly one `getChat`, then owner and customer `getChatMember` calls against the configured group with integer IDs; mismatched chat identity is rejected.


I read this as focused verification - the new contracts cover group request sequence, integer IDs, exact redacted 400 diagnostics, and group mismatch rejection; I am running the Task23 suite now.


I read this as fail-closed binding coverage - the supported observer passes its contract; I am adding preflight rejections for a substituted configured staff route and a tampered authenticated private inbound proof.


I read this as regression verification - checklist substitutions now have explicit fail-closed coverage; I am running formatting, strict types, and the full Task23 suite.


I read this as formatting correction - static analysis is otherwise clean; I am applying Ruff’s layout-only changes to the new Task23 route and observer code.


I read this as verification rerun - formatting-only changes are applied; I am rerunning Ruff, strict type checks, and the full Task23 suite.


I read this as final offline regression verification - the focused Task23 suite is green; I am running the related readiness, cutover, and preserved Task22 callback suites plus compilation before resealing once.


I read this as sealing - related readiness/cutover/Task22 callback tests (129) and profile-admin tests (86) pass, with clean compilation and diff checks; I am regenerating the Task23-only offline seal exactly once.


I read this as a controlled diagnostic - the seal is verified, and I am making one intentionally instrumented private-chat query with documented integer parameters to discriminate the remaining type-versus-private-membership hypotheses; it will write only a redacted external diagnostic and never produce activation evidence.


I read this as root-cause confirmation - the controlled integer-ID call returned `400 / "Bad Request: member not found"` in 815 ms, ruling out parameter order/type and confirming private-DM membership semantics. I am now using only the configured staff group to produce fresh external evidence and immediately consume the single preserved read-only preflight.


I read this as a preflight-environment failure - the supported evidence command completed before the chained read-only preflight hit the profile’s configured auxiliary-provider authentication gate; I am recording the combined profile snapshot and inspecting the external outputs without retrying the preflight.


I read this as final state inspection - supported evidence is valid and profile-identical, while the single preflight produced no JSON because it failed at the pre-existing auxiliary-provider authentication gate. I am reading the receipt and the cutover gate implementation only to report the precise expiry and failure cause, without another preflight.


I read this as precise blocker confirmation - the fresh group receipt is digest-valid, `left`, and expires at `2026-08-12T15:33:47.665783+00:00`; the one preflight reached `_require_provider_authentication` before Task23 readiness and failed because the configured auxiliary provider lacks Codex OAuth. I am reading that exact gate for the final human remediation wording.


I read this as completed diagnosis with a fail-closed preflight - supported Task23 evidence was generated, but the single preserved preflight is blocked by auxiliary-provider authentication.

- Root cause: private-DM `getChatMember` was invalid for testing customer membership. Telegram returned `400`, `error_code: 400`, `Bad Request: member not found`; integer parameters, correct order, 815 ms.
  - Diagnostic: `.omo/evidence/task23-st_019ff64e/2026-08-13T002813+0900-task23-private-membership-diagnostic/private-getchatmember-http400.redacted.json`
  - `method=getChatMember`, `chat_id_type=int`, `user_id_type=int`.
  - Official API contract: other-user membership is only guaranteed when the bot is an administrator of the target chat.

- Implemented supported evidence path:
  - Private owner proof: committed generation-29 owner card `126` and callback update `629525053`.
  - Customer private proof: authenticated Task23 inbound message `124`.
  - Staff observation: configured forum group `-1004484458766`, topic `59`; owner checked active and customer observed `left`.
  - Checklist: `.omo/evidence/task23-st_019ff64e/2026-08-13T002845+0900-task23-supported-evidence-and-preflight/task23-g1-g5-attestation-v1.json`
    - SHA-256: `26b925f4d304cdbb26a268b8762dc91c5722dbb6521479bfa7489a8ed500d3f8`
  - Receipt: `.../telegram-membership-observation-v2.json`
    - SHA-256: `9dde39f8e445681f3456902289179f30ba903b720d1436c22b3179ba51a978b7`
    - Canonical digest: `35f31f372aa06b9b5933d281a971a148b71538acf5cb9044f97f674ecbc94e0e`
    - Observed `2026-08-12T15:28:47.665783+00:00`; expired `15:33:47.665783+00:00`.

- One read-only Task23 preflight was run immediately and failed before `task23_ready`:
  `PROVIDER_AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED: run hermes auth for the configured Hermes auxiliary provider`.
  Its output file is intentionally empty: `.../task23-ready-preflight.json`.

- Profile before/after hash-and-inode snapshots are identical for both the diagnostic and evidence/preflight attempt. No activation, delivery, service, or authority mutation occurred.

- Resealed and verified:
  `915634199654c27d6bf1934e043c4a8086b5599ce4eaf3bddaa566f958aa9b31`
  - Task23 tests: 39 passed
  - Related readiness/cutover/Task22 callback tests: 129 passed
  - Profile admin tests: 86 passed

Unavoidable human action: authenticate the configured Hermes `openai-codex` auxiliary provider with `hermes auth`; any later preflight requires newly generated membership evidence because this receipt has expired.