I read this as a recovery-bound implementation task - I will establish the required local recovery acknowledgment, then resume its bounded phases without external actions.


I read this as a control-plane stop request - I will atomically correct only the acknowledgment JSON, then pause all substantive Task23 work.


Acknowledgment atomically rewritten as one JSON object, mode 0600. Substantive Task23 work is paused pending parent validation.


I read this as a control-plane acknowledgment repair - I will atomically refresh only its live PID with immediate `/proc` checks, then remain paused.


Acknowledgment PID refreshed atomically with `/proc` checks before and after rename. Paused.


I read this as a recovery-binding continuation - I will refresh and validate the prescribed acknowledgment, then complete the remaining offline phases sequentially.


WORKING


I read this as an immediate control-plane preemption - I will refresh the authoritative in-process acknowledgment, validate it, then resume sequential offline phases.


message: WebSocket error

stop_reason: error


Phase A passed: 19 focused schema/semantic/redaction tests.

Phase B is blocked: its immutable historical snapshot was removed during prior cleanup, and the integration test requires its exact SHA-256. Checkpoint: `.omo/evidence/task23-session-recovery/phase-b-integrated-disposable.json`.


I read this as a forensic recovery and validation task - I will authenticate preserved evidence, reconstruct only a sealed fixture if provenance is sufficient, then rerun phases B through E sequentially.


I read this as a sequential offline gate continuation - I will verify the persisted Phase B fixture and gate changes, then complete C, D, and E with checkpoints.


I read this as a focused build-verification fix - use the offline `uv` frontend once, inspect the artifact, clean it up, and replace only Phase E's checkpoint.


I read this as release-gate completion - verify Phase E and checkpoint integrity without external actions.

READY_FOR_ONE_FINAL_AUTH

Phase E offline wheel build and packaged-source inspection passed; output cleaned. A-E checkpoints are valid JSON, chmod 0600, newline-terminated, and all pass.


I read this as a narrowly authorized final-approval operation - revalidate the live sealed state and code lineage first, then publish exactly one owner approval card only if every requested pin still matches.


I read this as a gated final-approval operation - the live preflight failed closed, so I did not publish.

**Blocked; no new Owner DM, provider call, child append, delivery, restart, or Task24 action occurred.**

- Current schema digest is `7fda8dd3...`; A-E and fixture `e189d679...` validate.
- The sole authorization is already consumed: message `146`, card `628e91aacce1e48ebd8c6638`, callback SHA-256 `93d733d5...`, child `c01ec26a0a5f6a1e`, seal `638be6d4...`.
- That child already reached `generation_failed` with `provider_bad_request`. Fresh preflight fails: `Task23 compatibility terminal parent is stale`.
- The consumed seal pins old schema `28a712ef...`, not the required current digest.
- Gateway health is active: `hermes-gateway-dualcoachtest.service`, PID `3420750`.

Permission-sealed evidence: `.omo/evidence/task23-session-recovery/task23-final-authorization-preflight-blocked.json` (`0600`, SHA-256 `5bf1af27...`).


I read this as implementation - add and test a generic successor authorization sealed to the current terminal lineage, then run the disposable publication-inclusive gate before any live publication.


I read this as resuming the successor authorization implementation - inspect exactly what persisted, then complete focused verification and the disposable gate before the separately authorized live card publication.


I read this as a checkpoint-and-resume instruction - snapshot the exact persisted work and current bounded verification state before making any further edits or publication attempts.


I read this as a bounded verification checkpoint - I will run only the successor-focused tests and diagnostics, then atomically record their exact status and file hashes before any new edit.


I read this as a checkpoint completion - the unit suite is green; the one bounded disposable full-path test fails only at the new reply-markup assertion, and I will persist that exact cursor before correcting it.


I read this as resuming from the persisted cursor - I will inspect the recorded mock payload and its serializer, then make one minimal assertion correction if the wire contract confirms it.


I read this as a minimal test repair from the checkpointed failure - the mock correctly exposes Telegram's serialized JSON parameter, so I updated only the assertion to parse and validate the actual wire value.


I read this as the disposable-gate verification stage - the success path now passes, so I will run the complete bounded provider matrix with the successor unit suite and inspect whether the launcher itself needs a separate non-mutating check.


I read this as the pre-publication gate checkpoint - the complete disposable matrix passed (14 tests, including all provider outcomes), and I will now capture a fresh non-mutating live-profile preflight receipt and atomically seal the publication-inclusive result before any Owner DM.


I read this as the authorized one-time publication step - the checkpoint is sealed with fresh seal `73bbe3f2...e81412`, so I will invoke the publication launcher exactly once and persist its receipt without retrying on any outcome.


I read this as completion of the successor gate and one-time publication - the gate passed and one Owner card was sent.

- Checkpointed cursor and publication-inclusive gate (chmod 0600).
- Verified 14 disposable successor tests passed; Ruff/compileall passed.
- Fresh live preflight sealed: `73bbe3f2...e81412`.
- Published exactly one Owner DM/card to `8693203710` (message `148`).
- Post-publication verification passed: no child append, provider generation, or customer delivery.


I read this as a conditional live execution request - I will authenticate the persisted successor journal and callback binding, then either record a zero-action waiting receipt or run the one permitted consume path exactly once.


I read this as the no-callback branch - the authenticated journal is still `published`, has `authorization: null`, and matches message `148`/card `597e...6238`/child `7ecd...2017`; I will make no live call and seal this zero-delivery, inactive-gateway snapshot.


I read this as the no-callback branch - the authenticated live state is `WAITING_FOR_OWNER_CLICK`.

- Journal remains `published`; `authorization` is null.
- Exact binding verified: message `148`, card `597e2821078a2a7b042b6238`, child `7ecd9ed50dc28217`.
- Delivery/provider/child append counts are all zero.
- Gateway service is currently `inactive`; no action was taken.
- Permission-sealed evidence: `task23-portable-successor-owner-click-waiting.json` (`8cf94d88...`).


I read this as a controlled service-start request - I will first authenticate the unchanged published authorization and snapshot all protected ledgers, then start the inactive service once and require concrete runtime/polling evidence before declaring it ready.


I read this as a fail-closed service-discovery check - the system manager has no such unit, so I will inspect the user manager (the remaining legitimate service scope) before deciding whether a start is possible.


I read this as a controlled-reload assessment - the correct user service is active, but its PID predates this successor work; I will verify that no recoverable generation can fire before performing the single reload needed to load the new callback route.


I read this as the final pre-reload safety check - no nutrition job is recoverable and the running PID predates the successor route, so I will inspect startup recovery/card conditions and the exact polling-success signal before one user-service restart.


I read this as a restart-safety decision - the generation queue is empty, but one historical card has an unsent destination; I will verify whether startup would republish it before risking the authorized reload.


I read this as resolving the last restart side-effect risk - the historical card is marked `published`, not `not_sent`; I will read the recovery predicate and action path directly before the single restart.


I read this as confirming the restart is side-effect-free for Task23 - I will verify that current published cards cannot be reclaimed and failed generations cannot enter recovery, then issue one user-service restart with a bounded journal subscription for the polling-connected event.


I read this as verifying the runtime import target before restart - I will confirm the service interpreter resolves `telegram.py` from the persisted repository, then perform one bounded user-service reload and fail closed on any unmet condition.


I read this as the final checkpoint before a controlled restart - the service interpreter resolves the current successor and callback source from the repository, so I will seal the exact zero-mutation precondition before changing service state.


I read this as the one authorized runtime reload - the sealed preflight is current, so I will restart the user service once, await its exact polling-connected journal event, and fail closed if any protected Task23 state changes.


I read this as the fail-closed outcome - the one restart produced a new active PID with all protected ledgers unchanged, but the bounded subscription never observed Telegram polling connect; I will read the sealed receipt and recent service log to report the exact blocker without another restart.


I read this as a controlled-restart result - the restart completed, but readiness is fail-closed because polling never connected.

`BLOCKED_FAIL_CLOSED`: no `Connected to Telegram (polling mode)` event within the bounded subscription.

- Service is active/running: PID `3539813`, `NRestarts=0`.
- Current candidate and successor seal verified.
- Journal remains published with no callback; child/provider/delivery counts remain zero.
- Protected ledgers and cards are unchanged; no Task23 provider failure log observed.
- No second restart, card publication, provider call, child append, or delivery was performed.
- Sealed evidence: `task23-portable-successor-gateway-reload-health.json` (`395f5ddb...`).


I read this as root-cause investigation without mutation - I will test startup-block, profile/config, Telegram auth/network/conflict, and logging-signal hypotheses against the live process, unit, logs, and prior PID evidence before considering any repair.


I read this as narrowing the active-start hang - the process has two established Telegram fallback TLS sockets but has not emitted the connection milestone, so I will inspect runtime state, file logs, TCP state, and a read-only Python stack sample to locate the blocked startup step.


I read this as the evidence-backed root cause - PID `3539813` is healthy and connected; the false block came from subscribing to systemd stdout while Telegram logs to the profile gateway log. I will seal a corrected readiness receipt without changing code or restarting again.


I read this as completed root-cause debugging - the gateway is ready for message 148's Owner click.

`READY_FOR_OWNER_CLICK_148` — PID `3539813`, `NRestarts=0`.

Root cause: observability-source mismatch. The failed monitor followed systemd stdout; Telegram startup logs are written to the profile `logs/gateway.log`. That log records the current PID's fallback discovery, all three command-scope registrations, and `Connected to Telegram (polling mode)` at `10:05:51`.

Hypotheses resolved:
- Startup crash/retry: rejected; active/running, `NRestarts=0`.
- Wrong profile/platform disabled: rejected; runtime state reports Telegram `connected`.
- Auth/network/409 conflict: rejected for current PID; current successful startup evidence supersedes historical errors.
- Init/log issue: resolved as wrong log sink, not an init hang.

The successor journal remains published/auth-null for card `597e...6238`, message `148`; child/provider/delivery counts remain zero and protected ledgers are unchanged. No further restart or external action occurred.

Permission-sealed correction: `task23-portable-successor-gateway-monitor-correction.json` (`fd1aaaf6...`).


I read this as a fresh conditional authorization check - I will authenticate the sealed journal and current polling state without touching the consume path, then either preserve a waiting receipt or execute the one-use flow only if the exact Owner callback is present.


I read this as the waiting branch - the sealed journal remains exactly `published` with `authorization: null`, while Telegram polling is connected; I will record the current zero-delivery evidence and make no consume or provider call.


I read this as the waiting branch - `WAITING_FOR_OWNER_CLICK`.

The sealed journal remains `published` with `authorization: null` for message `148`, card `597e...6238`, and child `7ecd...2017`.

- Telegram polling is connected; gateway PID `3539813`, `NRestarts=0`.
- Child append/provider/customer delivery remain zero.
- No consume, provider, card, child, draft, or delivery action occurred.
- Sealed evidence: `task23-portable-successor-owner-click-waiting-current.json` (`8901f998...`).


I read this as a gated live-consume request - I will first authenticate the persisted callback and current seal from the journal itself; only an exact `owner_authorized` record permits the one-use consume and generation path.


I read this as the authorized execution branch - the exact Owner callback `629525078` is sealed and current, so I will checkpoint that authorization, quiesce the gateway for the CAS consume, and use the existing one-use launcher rather than creating another child path.


I read this as preparing the one-use CAS transition - I will seal the exact authorization and read the launcher’s service guard, then stop the gateway once and invoke the existing atomic consume command with only journal-derived compare-and-set values.


I read this as the atomic-consume stage - I will now stop the callback gateway, revalidate the exact authorization at the quiescent boundary, and invoke the single CAS consume; no provider or review-card action occurs in this stage.


I read this as a quiescence-guard correction - the stop left systemd in `failed` because this service maps SIGTERM to exit 1, but `MainPID=0` and the launcher’s own `is-active` guard is false; I will reauthenticate unchanged state and perform the still-unattempted consume once.


I read this as the actual one-use consume boundary - the gateway is conclusively non-active and the authorization remains exact, so I will invoke the portable successor consume launcher once and seal its CAS receipt.


I read this as correcting a local prelaunch error - the consume launcher was never invoked because the argument-builder used the wrong interpreter path; the journal remains unmodified, so I will run the launcher once from the repository venv with the same authenticated CAS values.


I read this as the single-generation stage - the exact child is now atomically pending, so I will start the gateway once, subscribe to its ledger/card completion, and stop the workflow immediately on any terminal failure.


I read this as the terminal-failure branch - the one permitted generation reached `generation_failed`, so I will inspect the sealed redacted receipt only and stop without retry, restart/replay, or any further child/card/provider action.


I read this as final terminal-failure attestation - I will make one read-only reconciliation of the child/card and write a compact redacted diagnostic receipt; no replay, retry, provider call, or new child will follow.


I read this as sealing the final failure evidence - I will record the published Owner failure card and hash-pinned redacted validation diagnostic, including the single worker attempt’s inline semantic correction, then end the flow.


I read this as terminal execution reporting - the authorized flow consumed once, terminally failed validation, and has been stopped without retries.

- Consumed child `7ecd9ed50dc28217` exactly once.
- One worker attempt ended `generation_failed`: `invalid_model_output`, non-retryable.
- Owner review card published: message `149`.
- No draft, customer delivery, activation, replay/restart verification, commit, push, or release occurred.
- The worker made its configured inline semantic correction (2 provider audit records) within the single attempt; no subsequent attempt was issued.
- Redacted terminal evidence: `task23-portable-successor-terminal-failure-redacted.json`
  SHA-256: `cf7854cb6e6d7fbc054ef3e5c4b988beeb8e3299a52b0fcc6bc36b1853282583`