I read this as a read-only forensic diagnosis - I’ll trace the retained audits and validator paths, reproduce validation offline without provider access, then write only a chmod-0600 redacted verdict artifact.


I read this as a completed forensic diagnosis - I’ll report the exact verdict, evidence, and repair boundary.

## Bottom line

**Exact verdict:** `SEMANTIC_FAILURE_CONFIRMED_SUBCLAUSE_UNRECOVERABLE_DIAGNOSTIC_GAP_REPAIR_REQUIRED_NO_SUCCESSOR_AUTHORIZED`.

Both provider calls completed with strict-schema transport and `finish_reason=stop`; parser, shape, transport, status, and hard-budget failures are excluded. The initial response reached `semantic_validation_failed`; the inline response failed revalidation, but the retained one-way audit hash cannot distinguish grounding, target consistency, offered-ID, copy, or safety subclauses without fabricating certainty.

## Action plan

1. **Test first — Short, 0.5-1 day:** add schema-valid fixtures for each semantic rule and assert privacy-safe `rule_code` plus JSON path.
2. Retain ordered initial/correction diagnostics containing only phase, rule/path, and hashes; log the second diagnostic too.
3. Add a live-style integration mode with two semantic-invalid strict-schema outputs. The existing disposable fixture used a perfect 140-token canned response, unlike the 344/320-token live outputs.
4. Resolve the current grounding drift before any future attempt: terminal revision `f266…ae1` now reconstructs as `9a49…c65`. This was not the live failure—the pre-provider check passed—but it blocks reuse now.
5. Another successor is justifiable only after repair, passing gates, a fresh authority seal, and new explicit Owner authority. This report does **not** authorize one.

## Risks and mitigations

- **False root-cause attribution:** six different schema-valid semantic failures all collapse to the same retained code. Mitigate with allowlisted rule diagnostics, never raw prose.
- **Unsafe replay:** current revision drift makes the old pin stale. Keep fail-closed request fingerprint and revision checks.
- **Gate blind spot:** seal transitive judgment/request/types/copy/safety dependencies.

Evidence: `task23-child-7ecd9ed50dc28217-invalid-model-output-forensic-redacted.json`
Mode `0600`, SHA-256 `dda96f649ec3daa16e417584ef358ef27d38d8c3caafd7dbc21d569eb1247ba9`. Offline verification: **3 tests passed**; no provider, Telegram, retry, publication, profile/service/DB mutation, or repository operation occurred.


I read this as an offline test-first implementation - I’ll add rule-level redacted diagnostics, prove and repair the revision drift, extend sealing and integration coverage, then run the bounded release gate without external or profile mutations.


I read this as completed offline implementation and readiness reporting - I’ll summarize the repair, verification, and authorization boundary.

## Bottom line

`READY_FOR_NEW_EXPLICIT_AUTH = YES`, but **no authorization, successor, card, publication, or provider call was created**.

The reported `f266... -> 9a49...` drift was a reconstruction error: forensic input truncated `public_evidence` from 5 entries to only `checkin.current`. The canonical request still reconstructs terminal revision `f266...`; truncating evidence exactly reproduces `9a49...`.

## Numbered action plan

1. **Diagnostics repaired**
   - Added allowlisted rule codes and JSON paths for 22 strict-schema-valid semantic failure rules.
   - Persisted ordered `initial` and `correction` diagnostics with hashes only.
   - Preserved `validate_coach_proposal()`’s proposal-or-`None` API.
   - Proved raw model/customer prose is absent from failed records.

2. **Binding and sealing repaired**
   - Added exact request fingerprints and fail-closed checks for revision or request drift.
   - Successor consumption now rejects stale request binding before appending a child.
   - Sealed judgment, request, types, copy-integrity, and safety dependencies.
   - Terminal history and binding strength remain unchanged.

3. **Verified offline**
   - Semantic/portable modules: `85 passed`.
   - Focused nutrition worker/request tests: `49 passed`.
   - Publication-inclusive disposable matrices: `24 passed`.
   - Ruff, compileall, and focused Ty: passed.
   - Offline wheel: 9 packaged source files byte-identical.
   - Direct verifier reconstructed `f266...` with 5 evidence entries and reproduced `9a49...` only when truncated to 1.

4. **Authorization boundary**
   - The consumed historical authorization must not be reused.
   - Any future successor requires a fresh source/request seal and new explicit one-use Owner authority.

## Risks / mitigations

- Whole-file Ty on the large existing `nutrition_coaching.py` surface still exposes extensive pre-existing diagnostics; the requested focused changed-module Ty set is clean.
- Existing seals are stale after source repair by design; fresh sealing prevents accidental reuse.

Evidence, mode `0600`:

- `task23-diagnostic-binding-repair-checkpoint-redacted.json`
  SHA-256: `9cec2ef4e88108837ba5b0a70a8a2f480617ebf0bf90c60e5dae4aa5b0e06fdb`
- `task23-diagnostic-binding-repair-verification-redacted.json`
  SHA-256: `59b5d6e90cc0e8ce8294ff00a35c1be21679d1f1a9ddfb4cb42c2041ee059432`

No commit, push, release, live profile mutation, Telegram action, or authorization occurred.


I read this as an explicitly authorized, one-card live publication - I’ll first revalidate every terminal/request/gate/health pin, implement and test a fresh one-use generic successor authority, restart only to load its callback namespace, then publish exactly one Owner DM card or fail closed before any live write.


I read this as live publication of one sealed Owner-only successor card - I implemented, revalidated, restarted the callback-capable gateway, and published exactly once.

**Bottom line:** Published successfully. Owner approval remains pending; no successor authorization was granted.

1. **Publication**
   - Label: `진단 강화 Coach 최종 1회 승인`
   - Telegram message: `150`
   - Card ID: `3681c290509e1e898ac725c5`
   - Callback SHA-256: `b0359dc83a4a36f3dd8639452045c786acad1e09702ff0ef36334a9b53cd6ebc`
   - Journal state: `published`
   - Publication attempts: `1`

2. **Binding pins**
   - Parent: `7ecd9ed50dc28217`
   - Generation: `3`
   - Parent digest: `ce80a83ce61131246d0f5f9600dab4ae9de1df6c2d23810c405df17f032a7796`
   - Revision: `f266949e05195d9a23c728264f84507e3edcea207126f501df0251924c117ae1`
   - Request SHA-256: `e27d04b3120e253b22978a46669a2c89a6436a40988efca4b029ae2b8edb3e03`
   - Request fingerprint: `6c58090a78df21de43a5d3c97f12c3a5c75a1bd2ec1c20564cf9d3b843dce6a8`
   - Evidence entries: `5`
   - Prospective child: `2188ecd754a05fd7`

3. **Seal pins**
   - Seal: `d6d26d29f81000822154f9ed5691d24019b4095226a0bb1c53e953f3ad6bd493`
   - Base source seal: `3f78d8e2f1e9a6180e5aab1b7cb839abcf718effe515b65e93661d4bbc3f1120`
   - Generic source seal: `ca0b926c23ac167345aa871b0deff47646b7b2936532ca6b23380041e8c98084`
   - Journal SHA-256: `4cfc468ed50296ba01a1b823da61f6bc0107c597fe06ccf0cb0eb195e7120bc8`

4. **Verification**
   - Sealed 85/49/24 test, quality, matrix, direct-verifier, and wheel pins revalidated.
   - New callback/CAS tests: `7 passed`.
   - Ruff, compileall, and `git diff --check`: passed.
   - Gateway restarted only to load `csa1` callbacks; active as PID `3563069`.
   - Protected generation/request/card/root ledgers remained byte-identical.
   - No provider call, child append, customer delivery, Task24 action, activation, commit, push, or release occurred.

5. **Permission-sealed evidence**
   - Path: `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/task23-session-recovery/task23-diagnostic-coach-successor-authorization-publication-redacted.json`
   - Mode: `0600`
   - SHA-256: `2111c49e4d93a6c2686ef815005a5c66c1d2b0537810d9ac62fa56d9acf5cb7a`

**Risks/mitigations:** Any terminal, request, source, route, message, or ledger drift causes the callback to fail closed. Duplicate callbacks are rejected by the one-use CAS.


I read this as authorized one-shot successor execution - I’ll authenticate the sealed callback and ingress first, then consume exactly once, run one bounded worker attempt, publish only the Owner review card on success, and stop fail-closed otherwise.


message: Codex error: An error occurred while processing your request. You can retry your request, or contact us through our help center at help.openai.com if the error persists. Please include the request ID 64de62ea-49e6-4476-b836-335f67c739dd in your message.

stop_reason: error


I read this as completing the authorized one-shot successor - I authenticated, consumed, ran once, stopped on terminal validation failure, restarted, and verified zero replay.

**Bottom line:** Terminal failure. No retry or new child was created.

1. **Authorization authenticated**
   - Owner: `8693203710` / topic `0`
   - Message/card: `150` / `3681c290509e1e898ac725c5`
   - Ingress update: `629525079`, unique receipt
   - Callback SHA-256: `b0359dc83a4a36f3dd8639452045c786acad1e09702ff0ef36334a9b53cd6ebc`
   - Seal: `d6d26d29f81000822154f9ed5691d24019b4095226a0bb1c53e953f3ad6bd493`
   - Request fingerprint: `6c58090a78df21de43a5d3c97f12c3a5c75a1bd2ec1c20564cf9d3b843dce6a8`

2. **Consumed exactly once**
   - Child: `2188ecd754a05fd7`
   - Initial record: `4098e2e42ac5cb7def1409f91d664c9696a802421493b916d484d82249d1b52f`
   - Descendants appended: `1`
   - Duplicate appends: `0`

3. **Worker terminal result**
   - Worker attempts: `1`
   - Provider calls: `2` — initial plus configured inline correction
   - Both provider calls: `completed`, `finish_reason=stop`
   - Terminal state: `generation_failed`
   - Error: `invalid_model_output`, non-retryable
   - Terminal record: `54427054830635a7175a9a748c020e6e4ebfca8587fd3f32969dfa72c2a4b7a5`

4. **Exact redacted diagnostics**
   - Initial:
     - Rule: `copy.interpretation_numbers_grounded`
     - Path: `$.interpretation`
     - Response: `56f854f5c1f6bcc977090c5fc6a537a5a91c1640815caddb791db435be8586fd`
     - Audit: `1c356052fef05d4a034be5fd8adb136b45504cba9b816e217cd92b32f6fb2d24`
   - Correction:
     - Rule: `ids.evidence_ids_offered`
     - Path: `$.evidence_ids`
     - Response: `5349be33129580d5dbd06db5853e083c2609aec4aa6815067d5ef0bd85fcecb7`
     - Audit: `0bc3242b5abb989932b4224333cc7c69db30be15e4ac1911423db47c994cb9fe`

5. **Post-run guarantees**
   - Owner failure-review card: message `151`, exactly one, published
   - Drafts/canonical draft events: `0`
   - Customer deliveries: `0`
   - Task24/customer activation: not performed
   - Controlled restart completed; polling connected
   - Fresh-process replay: provider duplicates `0`, child duplicates `0`
   - Gateway PID: `3570862`

6. **Sealed evidence**
   - `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/task23-session-recovery/task23-diagnostic-coach-successor-live-execution-redacted.json`
   - Mode: `0600`
   - SHA-256: `b950dd7fb50b5cf2dd9c8ce834b72a4cefe7884016a50499eb90a33b19323a00`
   - Consumption journal SHA-256: `c3bceabeb36607b58ff00d6bfb82466e7e36953ca14aa0bbd0d130ba041a1bfe`

**Risk/mitigation:** The initial launcher process lacked the Telegram package and exited before entering the worker or invoking a provider. The already-fenced attempt was resumed through the repository venv without incrementing the attempt counter. Final verification passed: `80 tests`, Ruff, compileall, Ty, and diff check.


I read this as an offline semantic-hardening implementation - I’ll add failing coverage for the two live rule classes, make request-scoped schema and correction constraints exact, then run the full offline release path and report readiness only if every gate passes.


I read this as implementation - checkpoint the completed hardening, then preflight and publish one newly sealed Owner-only authorization card without executing it.


message: WebSocket error


I read this as implementation - the checkpoint and one-use publication are complete.

- Checkpoint: `task23-automated-final-auth-recovery-gate-checkpoint-redacted.json`
  - SHA-256: `38f21bc6f96365c1ab7f7e296488eb432963b5b724364ecc3d682f5bd59a5762`
  - Verdict: `READY_FOR_AUTOMATED_FINAL_AUTH`
  - Disposable recovery matrix proves draft `1`, event `1`, review card `1`, restart duplicates `0`, delivery `0`.
- Published Owner-only card:
  - Label: `자동 복구 Coach 최종 승인`
  - Message: `152`
  - Card: `36dc9c4bd7b6dd6fd2112672`
  - Prospective child: `3f44a18ea620d963`
  - Callback SHA-256: `b1aa0de506944a47207dcddbc23a7d7288b10789e7d9f102fd2c775265bd2823`
  - Seal: `7c705183b3b09b6461e6baf64a06b393cd43f7d22c7e20d11b2cd1f3eedc9497`
  - Journal state: `published`, mode `0600`
- Publication evidence: `task23-automated-recovery-coach-successor-authorization-publication-redacted.json`
  - SHA-256: `4e6bf0b31a929f7f6c6d90a01d80ecc4a6b944e2d02f452419f9a3982788900f`
- Gateway restarted once to load `acra1:`; PID `3586515`, active with polling connected.
- No provider call, child append, draft, delivery, Task24 action, activation, commit, push, release, or delegated-worker click occurred.


I read this as verification - validate message 152 and the active callback runtime without publishing, restarting unnecessarily, or executing generation.


I read this as authorized execution - authenticate the exact click, fence one child and worker attempt durably, then stop on its terminal outcome and verify replay safety.


Execution completed successfully.

- Authenticated Owner click: update `629525080`, message `152`, unique ingress.
- Consumed once; appended child `3f44a18ea620d963` exactly once.
- Worker attempts: `1`
- Provider calls: `1` initial, `0` corrections
- Terminal state: `draft_created`
- Draft/event/Owner review card: `1/1/1`
- Owner review message: `153`
- Customer deliveries/Task24: `0/0`
- Replay duplicates: provider, child, draft, card all `0`
- Gateway PID `3601084`, active and polling; `NRestarts=0`
- No activation, commit, push, or release.

Evidence (`0600`):

`task23-automated-recovery-coach-live-execution-redacted.json`

SHA-256: `09624a339642ee903b6597e2ee61fad80d04ac2bfac20662d1e38ebea37d3e29`


I read this as implementation - reconcile Task23’s verified success into the canonical evidence, ledger, plan checkbox, and active-plan metadata without touching Task24 or live runtime state.


I read this as Task23 completion synchronization - the evidence, ledger, plan, and runtime invariants are now verified.

Task23 is synchronized successfully:

- Plan: `23/32` complete; Task23 alone checked; Task24 remains unchecked and next.
- Ledger: 83 valid JSONL records; exactly one Task23 `verification-passed` event. Also repaired the pre-existing malformed line 82 by restoring its missing `resources` key.
- Canonical evidence: refreshed three `dualcoach-task-23*` artifacts, all mode `0600`.
- Manifest: 13 artifact digests verified clean.
- Authoritative live evidence SHA-256: `09624a339642ee903b6597e2ee61fad80d04ac2bfac20662d1e38ebea37d3e29`.
- Lifecycle: one child, worker attempt, provider call, draft, event, and review card; zero customer deliveries and replay duplicates.
- Protected profile state: nine terminal hashes matched; no delivery surface appeared.
- Gateway: active/running, PID `3601084`, `NRestarts=0`.
- Boulder required no edit: active plan and both session IDs were already correct.
- No Task24 action, real-customer activation, provider/Telegram action, service restart, profile/database mutation, commit, push, release, or activation change occurred.

Modified files:

- `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-23.md`
- `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-23-evidence.json`
- `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-23-evidence-index.json`
- `.omo/start-work/ledger.jsonl`
- `.omo/plans/dualcoach-production-readiness.md`

Overall release verdict remains **NO-GO**.