I read this as a delegated implementation and controlled live-execution task - I’ll first inspect the required evidence and existing Task23 workflow, then make the smallest test-backed hardening and run the authorized single replacement.


I read this as an implementation and controlled live execution request - I will harden the replacement path, verify it, then perform the one authorized replacement without customer delivery.


I read this as live Task23 replacement execution - I’ll complete the safety review, then quiesce, execute the CAS-pinned replacement, and verify the resulting audit state.


I read this as authorized live replacement execution - the final checks pass, so I’ll quiesce the user gateway and run the pinned one-time replacement without invoking provider or customer transport.


I read this as post-execution audit - the replacement committed once; I’ll verify parent immutability, successor lineage, zero customer artifacts, and the durable journal while the gateway remains quiescent.


I read this as audit preservation - the immutable parent, single pending successor, journal integrity, and zero-delivery invariants all hold; I’ll seal a redacted external execution receipt before restarting the gateway.


I read this as controlled recovery resumption - the sealed receipt is written; I’ll restart the gateway, await the successor’s durable terminal state, and confirm no approval or customer delivery occurred.


I read this as runtime reconciliation - the successor performed its bounded generation and failed strict validation without a draft or delivery; I’ll wait only for the owner-card receipt to settle, then seal the final redacted outcome.


I read this as operator-card repair - the worker result is correctly terminal and delivery-free, but the new owner card’s activation edit failed; I’ll diagnose that exact provider error and fix only the card activation path without retrying generation.


I read this as a minimal no-op handling fix - Telegram confirmed the card already had identical content and markup, so I’ll make that success path explicit and cover it without touching generation or delivery logic.


I read this as regression verification - the test reproduced the exact Telegram no-op; the activation path now treats it as success, and I’ll run the relevant suite and static checks before restarting the service once.


I read this as regression diagnosis - the full nutrition suite exposed a golden-path strict-validation failure outside the no-op card change, so I’ll identify its exact validation code before deciding whether a focused correction is needed.


I read this as completing the authorized replacement closeout - the failure is a stale golden-path assertion: it expects the old flat response contract, while the request now correctly carries the strict JSON Schema, so I’ll update that assertion and then restart and seal the already terminal runtime state without re-generating or delivering anything.


I read this as controlled runtime activation and sealing - the focused suite now passes all 141 tests, and I’ll restart the exact user-scoped gateway that runs this checkout, then verify that restart made no generation, card, draft, delivery, or Task24 transition.


message: WebSocket error

stop_reason: error


I read this as final state attestation - the replacement replay preflight is read-only and confirmed the same terminal ledger hash, so I’ll collect a redacted, assertion-backed runtime snapshot and seal it with a canonical integrity digest.


I read this as seal verification correction - the live-state assertions found an evidence-script assumption mismatch before any file was written, so I’ll pinpoint that read-only mismatch and keep the seal fail-closed until every invariant is true.


I read this as final attestation repair - the remaining failure is only the ordering of `systemctl --value` fields, not a runtime invariant, so I’ll parse named fields and regenerate the sealed snapshot without changing live state.


I read this as final verification - the sealed redacted evidence is written, and I’ll verify its integrity and permissions while separately recording the known broader test/type baseline so the closeout does not claim an unrun clean suite.


I read this as baseline triage - the broader onboarding failure reproduces exactly as pre-existing, while `ty` and `python -m build` are unavailable in this environment; I’ll locate the project-supported validators/build path and inspect the failing test’s changed control flow without touching it.


I read this as final baseline confirmation - the project’s offline reproducible wheel build passes; the onboarding test is unrelated and fails because it expects a publication error to escape a handler that now catches it, so I’ll record the exact type-check baseline and confirm the sealed service state once more.


I read this as precise failure attribution - the broad suite’s injected publication failure is not reached, so I’ll trace the callback’s early-return guard to document the unrelated test mismatch accurately, without altering the sealed Task23 flow.


I read this as focused type-correctness remediation - `ty` isolated three errors in the new replacement store, so I’ll tighten only its JSON mapping narrowing and rerun its tests and type check; the Telegram type baseline remains separate.


I read this as implementation closeout - the authorized replacement is sealed, live service is running, and no further generation or delivery was performed.

- Successor `664046dbca210afc` is terminal `generation_failed` (`invalid_model_output`, non-retryable); parent history remains immutable.
- Owner-DM card `141` is published. No drafts, deliveries, scheduled delivery, or Task24 action exists.
- Gateway restarted and is active as PID `3222037`.
- Final redacted evidence: `.omo/evidence/task23-st_019ff92a/2026-08-13T142021+0900-final-runtime-seal/task23-final-runtime-seal.redacted.json`
  Integrity: `cfc0b22cf54c3e1efd8c3c0d42820621489e0d592eceda0cc1c036cda1a0d2e5` (mode `0600`).

Verified:
- Focused suites: 141 passed.
- Replacement-store `ty check`, Ruff, compile, diff checks: passed.
- Offline reproducible wheel build: passed.

Broader baseline remains non-clean: onboarding suite has 55 passed / 1 unrelated failure in `test_real_callback_replay_after_transition_republishes_once_and_receipts_once`; existing Telegram typing diagnostics also remain.


I read this as read-only forensic evidence review - I’ll inspect the persisted successor records, redacted runtime logs, current card rendering, and request path without invoking any provider or mutating live state.


I read this as completing the forensic record - the terminal ledger preserves only hashed per-response diagnostics, not JSON-path/type details; I’ll now verify the configured cloud route, exact card rendering rules, and all available worker log stages without sending anything.


I read this as evidence comparison completion - I have the successor’s durable terminal record and current card state; I’ll read the existing redacted parent postcheck once to distinguish recorded parent facts from unrecoverable per-response diagnostics.


I read this as read-only forensic evidence review - I inspected persisted records and code paths only; no live action was taken.

**Successor `664046dbca210afc` persisted diagnostics**
- Stage: `generation_failed`, generation `3`, attempt `1/2`.
- Terminal code: `invalid_model_output`.
- Detail: `model output failed strict validation`.
- Retryable: `false`.
- Validation audit hash: `6ec361a7f699e5534c9b6c817e3c555fdd24e62286da7bf3232bf4541a3e0e18`.
- Draft revision and provider receipt: both `null`.

Not persisted: individual diagnostic code(s), JSON path, actual JSON type, actual key set/count, expected-vs-actual values, raw response hash(es), or a parser-versus-semantic classification. The audit hash commits to those privacy-safe per-pass hashes but is intentionally non-reversible.

The worker performs one correction pass after a rejected first pass. Terminal failure means that correction also did not yield an accepted `ValidatedCoachProposal`; no draft was created.

**Parent comparison**
- Parent `90f6df222e870e58`: generation `6`, attempt `2/2`, `generation_failed`, `invalid_model_output`, non-retryable, no draft/provider receipt.
- Parent detail was broader: `model output failed schema or semantic grounding`; it has no validation audit hash.
- Its redacted postcheck records one semantic correction, but no JSON-path/type/key diagnostics. Neither parent nor successor retained raw model content.

**Structured-output enforcement**
- The cloud request path constructs:
  - `response_format.type = "json_schema"`
  - name `nutrition_coach_response_v2`
  - `strict = true`
  - top-level object with `additionalProperties: false`, all 11 response fields required, and a closed `recommendation` object requiring exactly `calories`, `protein_g`, `carbs_g`, `fat_g`.
- Actual transmitted request payload and provider schema acknowledgement were **not persisted**. `generation_provider_receipt` is `null`; there is no provider response ID or acknowledgement record.
- The profile has no explicit draft provider/model values, so code defaults are `openai-codex` / `gpt-5.6-terra`, but the resolved provider/model is likewise not durably recorded.

Strict JSON schema enforcement can still produce `invalid_model_output`: it governs JSON structure, while the deterministic validator also requires matching customer/revision bindings, allowed evidence/focus IDs, target consistency, grounded numbers, recommendation/copy consistency, and safety constraints. The evidence cannot establish whether this was a provider schema miss, semantic grounding miss, or validator defect. It is **not deterministically fixable from retained evidence without the discarded response**; nor is genuine model semantic failure proven.

**Card 141 and authority**
- Label: `Check-in saved\nDraft generation failed`
- Buttons: one `재시도` button.
- The button is UI state, not new authority to retry.
- Current authority route: owner DM `("8693203710", "8693203710", "0")`; card state is `published`, generation `3`.

**Recommended next action:** obtain fresh explicit owner authorization before any retry or replacement; leave the terminal successor and card untouched.