I read this as a Task23 incident repair - I will audit the delegated evidence and source read-only, reproduce the partial state in isolation, then implement and verify the smallest fail-closed forward recovery path.


I read this as a production crash-recovery fix - I will prove the committed-state inconsistency in tests, implement the smallest fail-closed reconciliation, then verify it before one controlled recovery.


I read this as a confirmed expiry-boundary defect - I will add the reproducer that advances past the DM-link TTL, run it red, then make the recovery path explicit and narrowly authenticated.


I read this as implementation of the remaining live Telegram synthetic flow - inspect the current runtime state and interaction contract, then drive only the prescribed customer and owner actions.


I read this as a live-flow continuation with the customer GUI unavailable - confirm the supported synthetic ingress seam and exact rehearsal inputs, then use that seam rather than bypassing production state.


I read this as deciding whether the fallback can preserve the production boundary - inspect the live adapter construction and scheduler entry points before invoking any synthetic transition.


I read this as investigating the approved synthetic-ingress fallback - establish the live service's actual configuration and verify whether its public adapter boundary can be exercised without bypassing Telegram.


I read this as closing the fallback investigation - verify the effective Telegram configuration and rule out a supported local client or ingress endpoint before recording the single blocker.


I read this as recording the verified blocker - seal a redacted evidence note showing the live path is healthy, delivery is intentionally disabled, and no supported customer/owner ingress is available.


I read this as verifying the sealed blocker evidence - lock its permissions and validate its contents without touching the live profile.


I read this as completing Task23 through approved boundaries - stopped at the verified ingress blocker.

- Task23 successor remains `ACTIVE`, generation `6`; target customer is enabled; gateway is healthy with established Telegram polling connections.
- No supported authenticated customer/owner ingress exists locally. The only full-flow harness is test-only and uses a temp profile plus fake Telegram objects.
- Direct handler/service calls or forged updates would bypass the provider receipt boundary, so were not used.
- `adaptive_nutrition.delivery_enabled` is `false`, enforcing delivery0 and preventing an explicit customer-send receipt test.
- No post-activation check-in, draft, approval, delivery, or production-state mutation occurred.

Sealed evidence: `.omo/evidence/task23-st_019ff6be/2026-08-13T015304+0900-synthetic-ingress-blocker/`
SHA-256 verified: `5aa8e7837562e089899691298be22ab7b20baff5fd6e9b9e8689ff9ce3d63c02`

Exact blocker: authenticated access to the bound Telegram customer/owner accounts, or a documented supported synthetic ingress that preserves provider authentication and gateway receipts.


I read this as an evidence-only status request - inspect the live receipts, bound route, and tested 12-step contract without changing files or invoking Telegram.


I read this as resolving the remaining evidence ambiguities - locate the prescribed Q7 rejection sequence and verify whether the current registry/candidate surface differs from the sealed activation receipt.


I read this as evidence-only status reporting - I will finish the remaining read-only source and live-state checks, including the Q7 sequence and Task24 ownership boundary.


I read this as evidence-only status - read-only checks confirm activation and delivery0, while the requested live check-in remains unperformed.

- **ACTIVE/gen6:** signed bootstrap ledger reports `rb_f4L9siIlDP-R6IF27GwxdA` as `ACTIVE`, generation `6`; customer claim is user/chat `8527916639`, topic `0`, message `124`. The committed journal transaction is `768c0731e72448b3bfb6f935b40e7a30`, `recovery_required=false`, and the canonical registry loader accepts enabled customer `task22_dm_rehearsal`.
- **Registry hash:** raw file SHA-256 is `f894...116f4`; the journal pins the canonical document fingerprint `13fb...a9406`, which matches the loader's semantic fingerprint and audit record. This is serialization-vs-canonical-digest, not a mismatch.
- **12-question/start contract:** the customer card binds `오늘 체크인 시작` to the exact resolved customer address and message ID before opening the wizard. Ordered questions are bodyweight, calories, macros, meals, water, sleep duration, sleep quality, digestion, condition, appetite/stress, training summary, optional note.
  - Q7 accepts only `a1`-`a5`; `6` is rejected without advancing, then `4` advances.
  - The Task23 contract test uses: `70`, `2300`, `150 280 65`, `계획대로 3식`, `2.5`, `7`, reject `6` then accept `4`, `normal`, `4`, `식욕 3/5, 스트레스 2/5`, `하체 70분`, `skip`.
  - Save is available only at the summary after Q12; its `a0` callback creates the completion/request token and initial `generation_pending` record.
  - Important discrepancy: the opening-card copy says `체크인 저장`, but the actual nutrition summary button is labeled `저장`.
- **Live-flow boundary:** no authenticated customer start, answers, save, generation request, draft, or receipt exists. The above proves code/test contract, not a completed Telegram interaction.
- **Task24:** plan requires real owner/operator Telegram staff-card create/edit/approve/send actions; owner/operator is sole approval authority. It is not started.
- **Health/delivery0:** gateway is `active/running`, PID `1259817`, active since `2026-08-13 01:44:20 KST`, with no post-start error logs. `adaptive_nutrition.delivery_enabled=false`. Draft request/draft/delivery, scheduled-delivery/fence/claims, feature epoch, and ingress receipt artifacts are absent. One activation-completion notice exists in `prepared` state; it is not a customer-delivery receipt.

No files, configuration, service state, or Telegram interactions were changed.