I read this as an authentication investigation and execution task - I will inspect the prescribed evidence and Hermes configuration, then start only the configured provider's supported flow if authentication is needed.


I read this as immediate authentication execution - I will invoke the configured Hermes CLI's supported auth help, then start its official flow in a persistent PTY and return the displayed URL or device code.


I read this as immediate live authentication - I am starting the configured `openai-codex` auth flow in a persistent PTY now.


I read this as an authentication-state diagnosis - I will run only Hermes' read-only status and the exact Task23 auxiliary preflight probe, then distinguish valid credentials from profile-environment isolation.


I read this as an authentication-state diagnosis - `openai-codex` is logged in and the exact Task23 auxiliary probe returns `AUTH_OK`; no login flow is needed and the earlier failure was not caused by current credential or profile-environment isolation.


I read this as autonomous completion under existing authorization - Hermes auth is already valid, so I will generate fresh Task23 evidence, run the sole read-only preflight, and preserve complete profile hash-and-inode snapshots without any browser or account action.


I read this as autonomous Task23 completion - fresh evidence succeeded and the profile is unchanged, but the preserved preflight returned only its intentionally redacted wrapper error; I will obtain the underlying read-only validation reason without retrying any provider call.


I read this as a fail-closed preflight diagnosis - the root cause is G1 historical-identifier validation, and the diagnostic created profile bytecode cache drift; I will remove only those newly created cache files and re-establish the required unchanged hash-and-inode proof.


I read this as autonomous blocker isolation - the actual preflight reaches G1 and fails on historical identifier auditing, so I will verify whether the profile-local sealed package contains the expected Task23 classifier and identify the smallest non-human resume change without further provider calls.


I read this as final autonomous blocker confirmation - authentication and evidence collection are complete, while Task23 cannot reach `task23_ready` until its missing authenticated historical archive member is restored through the sealed Task22 path.


I read this as correcting the archive diagnosis - all three expected historical files are present, so I will inspect the classifier's exact immutable-pin checks rather than claim a missing artifact.


I read this as read-only terminal-proof validation - the historical file pins and path modes are valid, so I will call only the classifier's internal terminal-verification path to identify which authenticated Task22 proof rejects the exemption.


I read this as narrowing the classifier mismatch - its terminal proof is valid and non-mutating, so I will evaluate the three canonical archive paths directly to determine whether the G1 failure is path identity or a later audit condition.


I read this as a read-only diagnostic retry - the direct classifier command itself failed before emitting a result, so I will read its redacted stderr and preserve the exact failure rather than repeat any live preflight.


I read this as a diagnostic invocation error - the classifier was not executed because its profile-root environment variable was omitted; I will rerun that same local, read-only check with the bound root.


I read this as exact G1 identification - the three authenticated historical files are accepted, so I will scan the remaining data-root paths against the same owner-identifier rule without exposing any identity values or making a provider call.


I read this as autonomous Task23 authentication and preflight execution - auth is valid, fresh evidence was collected, and the read-only preflight is blocked by G1 rather than credentials.

- Auth: `openai-codex: logged in`; exact Task23 auxiliary probe: `AUTH_OK`. No browser, device flow, or manual action is needed.
- Fresh evidence pins:
  - Checklist: `26ea60effbe6916d88f3e344d1e34c71d750d64b84809f7bb62d53d5fc36f123`
  - Membership receipt: `ff568a985052a7289a9ea2911ada75e392afbdd33eac0a77b3d4ea0067e765a4`
  - Receipt digest: `6827f86297a052e03f2ff36e186dd9f37a40ce5cb58bef084041440f032525e4`
  - Observed `2026-08-12T15:33:44.793021+00:00`; expired `15:38:44.793021+00:00`.
- Primary evidence and preflight snapshots were identical: `094eebb7bcde112950f57bd7626a7bcd76e6f20758624f4cf2d68556fd3ec87a`.
- Preflight result: blocked before `task23_ready` by `G1 data root contains a foreign or personal identifier`.

Exact blocker: the active `nutrition-onboarding/migrations/task23-expired-bootstrap-supersession-v1.json` contains a forbidden owner identity. The three terminal Task22 artifacts are correctly authenticated and accepted by the Task23 classifier; this active Task23 journal is intentionally not exempt.

Smallest resume action: migrate the active Task23 supersession journal out of the customer data root through a new sealed Task23 migration; do not whitelist it. Then reseal, generate a new five-minute membership receipt, and rerun the read-only preflight.

Note: a separate diagnostic import later rewrote `channel_directory.json`; no direct restoration was attempted.