I read this as a focused Task23 production-repair implementation - I’ll audit the mandated evidence and runtime paths, reproduce safely, apply only the retry-safe fix, then verify without advancing Task24.


I read this as a focused Task23 production repair - I’ll verify the durable recovery and authorized operator route, implement the smallest retry-safe correction, then validate it without advancing customer workflow.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - inspect the durable generation and operator-route seams, then make the smallest token-preserving correction with focused tests.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - the generation path needs an explicit terminal-repair transition, while the unavailable Topic-59 route must be corrected only through an explicit configured operator surface.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - I will first add focused failing coverage for explicit terminal repair and durable no-duplicate card recovery, then implement only the seams those tests require.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - the new repair test exposed the shell’s global pytest lacks the project async plugin, so I’ll use the repository runner and keep the test aligned with the existing async suite.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - the terminal-repair test now fails at the intended missing API, so I’ll add a narrowly authorized `invalid_model_output` repair transition that keeps the existing history, token, event, and revision intact.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - terminal repair now passes; I’ll add the card-outbox regression next so the route correction can recover a definitive Topic-59 rejection without duplicate sends.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - the card test is failing at the intended old stateless publisher, so I’ll add a small durable card claim/receipt ledger: definitive route rejection blocks that route, while an explicitly different route may publish once.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - card receipt recovery now passes; I’ll add coverage that owner-DM routing is allowed only by an explicit card-route configuration and only when it matches canonical owner authority.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - the explicit route test exposed zero-topic normalization, so I’ll correct that boundary and then run the affected regression set.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - focused regressions pass; I’ll now inspect the scoped diff and run the relevant gateway suites to catch integration breakage before reporting.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - the broader runs exposed an unintended change to safety notices and legacy Topic-59 card tests; I’ll restore independent safety routing and preserve the existing explicit review route unless a replacement card route is configured.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - safety behavior is restored; the remaining failures use coordinator stubs without the new durable outbox contract, so I’ll update those focused card tests to assert the real claim/receipt boundary.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - card publishing now honors the durable coordinator contract in the existing adapter tests; I’ll inspect the recovery entry points and ledger invariants to ensure the terminal repair is actually reachable and retry-safe.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - the retry control now calls the terminal repair CAS before scheduling generation; I’ll verify the transition validation and configuration parsing edge cases, then run the complete affected suites.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - transition validation permits only the pinned terminal `invalid_model_output` repair and the config parser now rejects invalid DM routes; I’ll run the full scoped gateway suites once more.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - all scoped gateway suites pass; I’ll identify the repository’s configured build checks and run the relevant non-destructive validation without changing live Task23 state.


I read this as implementation of the two Task23 recovery blockers - scoped tests and Ruff pass; I’ll run the repository’s configured type checker on only the changed production modules and review the final targeted diff.


I read this as finalizing the Task23 recovery path - I found that an explicit owner-DM card route must also be accepted as the exact operator action route, so I’ll bind that authorization and cover it before final validation.


I read this as hardening the completed Task23 recovery path - I’ll restrict explicit replacement routes to the canonical owner DM and retain every definitively rejected route for a card state so no prior failed route can be retried.


I read this as hardening the completed Task23 recovery path - the enhanced regression correctly blocked the second failed route, so I’ll use a new explicit route for recovery and rerun the full affected suites.


I read this as final verification of the Task23 recovery implementation - the full affected suites pass; I’ll confirm whether the repository type checker reports anything in the newly changed regions before closing.


I read this as final verification of the Task23 recovery implementation - type checking found one new ledger narrowing issue and one pre-existing configuration typing pattern shifted into the changed file, so I’ll make both type-safe without changing behavior.


I read this as final verification of the Task23 recovery implementation - the checker exposed generic-dict narrowing in the configuration parser, so I’ll make the parsed mapping explicit and rerun the changed-region check.


I read this as final verification of the Task23 recovery implementation - the remaining changed-region type diagnostics are confined to untyped route input, so I’ll validate and narrow those fields at the configuration boundary.


I read this as final verification of the Task23 recovery implementation - all new regions are clean under the type checker while repository-wide pre-existing diagnostics remain; I’ll run the complete affected gateway suites one final time.


I read this as Task23 blocker remediation - completed and verified.

- Added owner-CAS repair for terminal `invalid_model_output`, preserving the existing token, finalized event, and revision.
- Added durable card publication receipts: Topic-59 rejection is recorded, never retried on the same route, and restart recovery can publish once on an explicitly configured canonical owner DM route. No implicit fallback.
- Retry callbacks repair before scheduling generation.

Verified:
- `pytest`: 172 + 237 passing
- Ruff, compileall, diff check passing
- `ty`: zero diagnostics in changed regions; 1,047 existing diagnostics remain elsewhere.

No live profile/config/ledger changes, restart, customer delivery, or workflow advancement was performed.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - I’ll verify the sealed authority, current durable state, and supported CAS migration surface before making any live change; I’ll stop at the exact blocker if that surface is absent.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - current state confirms the terminal failure and Topic-59 rejection, but no supported operator-card route CAS command exists yet; I’ll inspect the existing authority-migration conventions and add that bounded command before any live mutation.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the current runtime predates the durable card ledger, so I’ll inspect the coordinator construction and exact config shape to add a supported CAS migration that records the prior Topic-59 rejection before the owner-DM recovery.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - I’ll add the narrow durable rejection-record API now, so the legacy Topic-59 failure is preserved through a verified CAS instead of being inferred or overwritten during owner-DM recovery.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the durable rejection API is covered; I’ll now add the narrowly pinned, quiescent-only route CAS command that verifies the authenticated owner evidence and exact generation pins before writing only the owner-DM card route.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the bounded CAS command is in place; I’ll validate the new rejection-record behavior and run its read-only preflight against the current sealed profile before quiescing the sole poller.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the direct verifier stopped before mutation because the owner-proof match was not unique; I’ll inspect only the redacted proof identities to determine whether this is a verifier bug or an authority conflict.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the authority record is uniquely valid; the verifier compared its string chat identifier as an integer, so I’ll correct that read-only comparison and rerun preflight.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - preflight stopped again before mutation because the historical rejection parser did not recognize the logged exception format, so I’ll inspect that bounded log window and tighten the verifier to the actual receipt.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the log contains the exact provider rejection 35 lines after the marker, so I’ll extend the bounded parser and seal both marker and provider-error lines before rerunning preflight.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - a restart after the retry would otherwise emit multiple card messages, so I’ll make the durable card record update the same owner-DM message across generation states before any live restart.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the card update path now keeps one message across the repair state transition; I’ll run the full affected gateway regressions before quiescing the live poller.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - all focused regressions pass and the seal preflight is valid; I’ll capture the final read-only delivery/control baseline, then quiesce the sole poller for the CAS migration.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the sole poller is quiescent and the baseline has zero customer deliveries or generation cards; I’ll execute the sealed route CAS now and verify its durable rejection record before restarting.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the route CAS committed while the gateway remained quiescent; I’ll verify the owner-DM config and preserved Topic-59 rejection ledger, then start the single poller to publish the one durable owner card.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the new route and preserved rejection are durable, and the sole poller is active; I’ll await the exact owner-DM card receipt before performing the pinned terminal repair.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - exactly one failure card is durably published to the authenticated owner DM (receipt `140`) with the Topic-59 rejection retained; I’ll quiesce the poller again and invoke the owner-pinned terminal repair API.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the sole poller is quiescent; I’ll apply the exact owner CAS against generation `3`/record pin only, with no provider or customer transport call.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the owner CAS appended only the pinned pending retry (attempt 2) and preserved the sole owner card; I’ll start the sole poller and await that one worker’s terminal event.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the sole poller restarted with the pinned pending retry; I’ll wait for its exact terminal ledger state and stop immediately if the model remains invalid.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the sole authorized retry completed its one bounded attempt plus correction and remained `invalid_model_output`; I’ll perform only read-only failure postconditions, preserve sealed redacted evidence, and leave the healthy sole poller running without another retry.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - the retry failed exactly once after its correction and created no draft or customer delivery; I’ll correct the read-only scheduled-control binding projection, then seal the redacted evidence and stop further Task23 actions.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - evidence sealing failed before any file write because the retry crossed a minute boundary; I’ll bind the redacted verifier to its unique claim hash instead and seal the same postconditions.


I read this as authorized live Task23 recovery - route migration completed, then the sole bounded retry stopped on the exact remaining model-output blocker.

- CAS migrated generation-card routing to authenticated owner DM `8693203710/0`; Topic-59 rejection receipt remains sealed.
- Owner CAS preserved token/event/revision and ran attempt 2 with exactly one correction.
- Provider again returned `invalid_model_output`; no draft revision was created.
- One owner-DM operator card exists: message `140`, one durable receipt/card record, no duplicate across controlled restarts.
- Customer nutrition deliveries: `0`. No approval, send, or Task24 action. Control binding `127` remains distinct.
- Sole gateway poller is active and healthy.

Evidence: `.omo/evidence/task23-st_019ff92a/2026-08-13T132438+0900-live-postcheck-invalid-model-output/task23-live-postcheck.redacted.json`

Focused regressions passed: 174 nutrition/generation and 237 Telegram tests.


I read this as read-only Task23 failure diagnosis - I’ll inspect the durable envelopes, worker/validator paths, and comparable fixtures without invoking any provider, service, or mutation.


I read this as read-only Task23 failure diagnosis - I inspected the durable state, validator, provider path, and successful fixtures without mutation.

**Finding:** token `90f6df222e870e58` exhausted attempt `2/2`. Each attempt reached `semantic_grounding correction=1`, then terminal `invalid_model_output`; no draft, provider receipt, or delivery exists.

- Failure JSON path: `draft-generations.json[token][5].error.code = "invalid_model_output"`; `retryable=false`.
- No parser/schema JSON-path diagnostic was recorded. The validator returns only `None`.
- The requested two failed provider envelopes are not durable: failed raw strings are discarded. Raw output is persisted only after validation as `coach_artifacts.raw_coach_output`; that ledger does not exist for this token.

**Contract and correction**
- Model contract: `nutrition-coach-response-v2`; provider contract: `chat-completions-v1`.
- Configured/default draft route is `openai-codex` / `gpt-5.6-terra`; provider readiness passed.
- Expected response: JSON object with exactly 11 keys; `recommendation` is an object with exactly 4 keys.
- Cloud generation requests a 256-token completion but does **not** enforce native JSON-object response format.
- Correction prompt required one JSON object, exact offered identifiers/facts, and the supplied schema. Its result failed the same opaque validator gate.

**Hypotheses**
1. **Parser/schema drift rejecting valid output:** not proven. Current tests and two archived accepted artifacts parse the same 11-key/4-target-key V2 shape successfully.
2. **Provider emitted Markdown, non-JSON, or wrong fields:** possible, but unprovable; the bytes were not retained. Both outputs did reach validation as nonempty strings.
3. **Grounding validator overly strict:** not generally supported. It accepts current golden fixtures and archived valid artifacts, but may have rejected a specific unavailable output.
4. **Model/config mismatch:** not supported. The configured model/provider align with the recorded contracts; this was not auth, transport, or provider-readiness failure.

**Message 140**
- It is the single owner-DM operator status card, not a customer delivery.
- In `generation_failed`, it displays only `재시도` (retry).
- That button invokes the owner/CAS terminal-repair transition; it exposes a retry control but cannot retry this token now because the bounded attempt budget is exhausted. It has no approve/send button in its current state.

**Root cause:** failed provider outputs are collapsed into `validate_judgment(...) -> None` and discarded before persistence, leaving an opaque strict-validation failure. A more specific claim about malformed provider JSON versus a particular grounding rule is not evidence-backed.

**Recommended action:** keep this token terminal; fix the cloud draft path to enforce structured JSON and retain redacted failed-output validation diagnostics in a disposable test, then authorize a new recovery policy rather than retrying this exhausted token.