I read this as an offline, test-first provider-adapter repair - I’ll inspect the delegated proof and current implementation, then make the smallest verified change without touching plans, ledgers, or live services.


I read this as an implementation repair - I’ll finish compatibility and verification without touching unrelated changes.


I read this as completion of the requested repair - diagnose the failing compatibility test, make the smallest correction, then rerun targeted verification.


I read this as a compatibility correction - retain fail-closed Codex handling while making the legacy test explicitly use its intended OpenAI route.


I read this as verification after the focused test-fixture correction - run the complete related offline suite and static checks, while isolating known repository-wide type-check noise.


I read this as type-hardening and final review - separate the known unrelated onboarding replay failure, then correct static typing at the new untrusted provider-metadata boundary.


I read this as correcting type contracts at the same boundaries - validate untrusted map values before use and make optional stream metadata explicit.


I read this as validation of the type-boundary corrections - run focused static analysis first, then resolve any remaining diagnostics in the changed code before rerunning tests.


I read this as one remaining type correction - widen the persisted artifact map at the point it gains audit records, then repeat the clean focused checks.


I read this as final verification - confirm the changed regions are free of type diagnostics, rerun the focused behavioral suite, and check source integrity.


I read this as final review and packaging verification - inspect the completed boundary code and run the project build once against the final working tree.


I read this as completed implementation - the Codex structured-output and audit path is repaired and verified.

- Strict Codex schema translation, terminal metadata validation, typed provider audits, and v2/v3 artifact persistence are in place.
- Legacy OpenAI test route now explicitly configures OpenAI.
- Verified: 692 focused tests passed; `ruff`, `compileall`, diff check, and `uv build` passed.
- `ty` still reports repository-wide existing diagnostics, but none in the changed regions.
- Separate existing onboarding replay test remains failing: `test_real_callback_replay_after_transition_republishes_once_and_receipts_once`.


I read this as a guarded Task23 implementation and publication request - first inspect the current lineage/seal verifier and existing owner-card machinery, then add only the one-use authorization path without invoking a provider or replacement.


I read this as locating the existing Task23 authorization boundary - inspect its script, durable journal, verifier, and tests to derive the current seal pins before any mutation or publication.


I read this as current-state verification - derive only redacted profile pins and service status, then invoke the existing read-only Task23 preflight against those pins to prove whether it can authorize the requested lineage.


I read this as direct seal verification - current redacted pins are config `f931...af87`, generation ledger `424e...db5d`, terminal `664046dbca210afc` generation 6 digest `9bc092...7454`; run the legacy preflight read-only to prove it cannot authorize this new terminal successor.


I read this as defining the minimal fresh-authorization boundary - inspect the active runtime entrypoint, exact terminal/card contract, and existing one-purpose operational patterns before writing an isolated journal and callback handler.


I read this as implementing the isolated authorization control - add a sealed, redacted, one-use journal that only publishes/authorizes a future child and cannot invoke generation or delivery.


I read this as completing the published authorization path - correct the new journal's type boundary and load the callback handler into the active gateway before any Owner action.


I read this as completing the one-use Owner authorization - the card is published and armed without starting generation.

- Verifier: passed. Seal: `40bc3b94...e70527`
- Pins: config `f93106...af87`; generation ledger `424ef7...db5d`; terminal `664046dbca210afc` / gen `6` / `9bc092...7454`; event `wizard_995f04a3b8bc256fa13ff407`.
- Card binding: message `142`, Owner DM/topic `8693203710/0`, card `54e8ab8b37e67d0fe7b4fcd4`, callback hash `6758d1...833a5`.
- Prospective child only: `e2f07f9a41431ff1`, parent `664046dbca210afc` / `9bc092...7454`.
- Health: journal `published` (`0600`), gateway active PID `3261258`, no Owner authorization yet, no generation record/provider call/customer delivery. Replay publication was rejected with the journal unchanged.

Verified: focused tests `136 passed`; `ty`, Ruff, compile, diff checks, and `uv build` passed. The separately known onboarding replay test still fails outside this change.