I read this as a Task24 preflight implementation and verification - I will inspect the active plan, prior evidence, ledger, runtime, and source before exercising only an isolated disposable profile.


I read this as an implementation preflight for Task24 - I will validate the isolated callback path, fix only verified defects test-first, then produce sealed evidence and the operator script without touching the live profile.


I found one likely full-path defect: a successful operator edit sends a second staff review message instead of updating the durable generation card. I am adding the isolated regression scenario first to confirm it.


The first run stopped at copy integrity because `copytree` dereferenced profile virtualenv symlinks. I am preserving symlinks so the disposable profile is actually byte-identical before exercising the defect.


The real handler revealed a more immediate defect: edit text from the configured owner DM tries to send to a nonexistent forum topic. I will make it use the canonical operator address and update the existing durable card rather than emitting another card.


The corrected edit path passed, and the scenario advanced to restart recovery. Recovery then changed durable state before send; I am comparing only the disposable copy to identify whether that is an expected card reconciliation or a duplicate-send defect.


The recovery change is expected lineage reconciliation: an edit creates an immutable child draft, so the pre-edit token is superseded. I am correcting the preflight assertions to follow that child card and assert the actual invariants: one terminal delivery, no pre-send customer delivery, and no duplicate sends across restarts.


The post-restart explicit send was rejected before producing a receipt. I am inspecting the disposable delivery ledger and callback-visible token state to distinguish a harness sequencing error from a real restart defect.


This was harness sequencing, not a product failure: the approval callback carried the new child token but referenced the superseded card message. I am binding the callback to the edited child card, as a real Telegram button does.


The send callback had the same harness binding mistake after restart: it used the superseded message ID rather than the approved child card. I am correcting both the explicit-send and stale-card contexts to their real rendered cards.


The full path now reaches terminal delivery; the remaining assertion was too strict for immutable revisions. Regeneration and edit intentionally create two distinct draft versions, each with one review card. I am asserting that one-card-per-version invariant instead of treating the revision card as a duplicate.


The isolated full-path regression now passes with one customer send and one `sent_audited` receipt. I am running the focused handler regression, lint, and type checks before sealing the evidence.


The focused tests and lint pass. The full type check is blocked by extensive pre-existing Telegram/import diagnostics; the new harness also had avoidable `object`-typed state. I am tightening its local types, then will re-run type checking on the new files and record the source-wide blocker separately.


The new-files type gate, focused handler regression, lint, and a second isolated preflight pass are clean. I am adding the live-profile tree digest to the temporary report so the sealed evidence proves byte-for-byte non-mutation, not merely a passing assertion.


The final isolated preflight passed. The reproducible-wheel test is marked integration and was excluded by the repository default, so I am running that single test with its required marker rather than treating deselection as verification.


The reproducible-wheel check also passes. I am now sealing a redacted Task24 evidence record from the final disposable run, including the source-byte fingerprint and matching before/after live-profile tree digest.


The evidence repository is intentionally not a Git worktree; the execution repository has unrelated dirty/untracked files. I identified that I had adjusted one pre-existing untracked unit fixture, so I am restoring it and keeping compatibility in the production seam instead.


The final handler and isolated preflight pass after restoring the unrelated fixture. I am making one final focused package run and recording the remaining source-wide type diagnostics so the evidence distinguishes clean new-file checks from existing repository debt.


The sealed artifacts and one-window script are written with private modes. I am executing that exact script once, then verifying every indexed artifact digest and mode.


The exact one-window script and evidence manifest both pass. I am updating the execution record to distinguish the completed no-live Task24 preflight from the still-blocked overall release.


I read this as implementation - Task24 preflight is complete and sealed.

- Fixed owner-DM edit handling to use canonical DM topic `0` and durable child-card publication.
- Isolated real-handler matrix passed: one synthetic customer send, one `sent_audited` receipt, no duplicate/stale/wrong-role/restart delivery.
- Live profile tree remained byte-identical (2,711 entries).
- Evidence and rerunnable one-window script:
  - `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-evidence.json`
  - `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24.md`
  - `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-operator-preflight.sh`
- Verified: focused regressions, Task24 preflight, Ruff, new-file Ty, scoped diff check, reproducible wheel.
- Source-wide Ty remains blocked by 246 pre-existing diagnostics outside the changed region; none suppressed.
- No live Telegram/provider calls, commits, pushes, activation, or release. Overall release remains **NO-GO**.


I read this as investigation and operator-runbook design - I will inspect the live profile, owner card 153, gateway readiness, and current durable controls read-only, then produce a permission-gated human-only window script without touching the plan, ledger, or live state.


The plan is correctly unchecked. Read-only state shows message `153` is the current published `draft_created` card and the delivery ledger is absent, but the gateway is an unsupervised running process rather than the expected system unit. I am narrowing the remaining readiness and restart-control facts without invoking Telegram or the provider.


The user-level service is active and has an established Telegram TLS connection; the current live blocker is `adaptive_nutrition.delivery_enabled: false`, which makes the explicit Send button reject before creating an outbox receipt. I am confirming the supported delivery-gate seam and receipt fields so the script fails closed and its human sequence is exact.


I have enough context to make the handoff fail closed: the live service is healthy and connected, but the explicit delivery gate is off. I am creating a new, non-executed, permission-sealed human-window script that refuses that state, runs the sealed no-live adversarial matrix first, and performs only read-only observer checks except for the two explicitly sealed service restarts.


The script is now state-bound to message `153`, refuses a nonempty delivery outbox or disconnected gateway, and delegates the preflight matrix before any human click. I am validating it without `--run` and locating the supported provider-preflight surface so the final block list separates an actual gate from an unverified network credential.


The dry seal exposed a shell-level bug before any live operation: Bash rejects a temporary assignment to a readonly variable. I am correcting the script’s environment names; no live window was started. The provider preflight is local credential resolution, not a provider request, so I am reading its implementation before deciding whether to include it as a read-only gate.


The dry seal now passes. I am exercising only its fail-closed baseline branch with the current signed state; it must stop on the false delivery gate before any automated matrix, restart, Telegram action, or provider operation.


The first fail-closed invocation had an outer-shell quoting error on the path with a space, so it only rejected the absent seal. I am rerunning the same baseline-only check with the script path quoted; no live action has run.


The permission-sealed script correctly blocks at the current delivery gate before any live action. I am taking one final read-only integrity/status snapshot to confirm that the blocked dry run did not alter the profile or gateway.


I read this as Task24 real-window preparation - the live path is **BLOCKED** pending an approved delivery-gate deployment.

**Blocker**
- `adaptive_nutrition.delivery_enabled` is currently `false`. The real Send callback rejects before creating a delivery receipt. Message 153 has no control that enables this gate.
- Provider credential resolution was not invoked this turn (no provider interaction allowed). The script rechecks it locally before the human presses Regenerate.

**Read-only readiness**
- User gateway service: active/running, PID `3601084`, `NRestarts=0`.
- Gateway state: `running`; Telegram: `connected`; live Telegram TLS connection exists.
- Delivery ledger: absent (zero deliveries).
- Current card: Owner DM message `153`, token `3f44a18ea620d963`, `draft_created`, generation `3`, published on DM topic `0`.
- Current controls/callbacks:
  - `수정`: `n3:3f44a18ea620d963:e:f99c5ae3:99`
  - `재생성`: `n3:3f44a18ea620d963:r:f99c5ae3:99`
  - `승인`: `n3:3f44a18ea620d963:a:f99c5ae3:99`
  - `보류`: `n3:3f44a18ea620d963:h:f99c5ae3:99`

Permission-sealed one-window script:
```bash
/home/cube/projects/richard/traning\ coach/.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-real-one-window.sh
```

It:
- Binds a seal to the current card/delivery state.
- Fails closed on the false delivery gate.
- Runs the sealed isolated stale/repeat/wrong-role matrix before human interaction.
- Guides the human through `재생성` -> `수정` -> exact edit text -> `승인` -> restart -> `고객에게 보내기` -> customer-DM observation -> restart.
- Observes zero pre-send delivery, one generation receipt, one `sent_audited` receipt, and no restart duplicate.

The script was syntax-checked and its sealed `--run` branch was exercised only until the expected delivery-gate block. Live profile hashes and gateway PID/state remained unchanged.


I read this as authorized bounded implementation - I will first seal and verify that `dualcoachtest` is the only enabled delivery target, then make the single scoped delivery-gate change, restart once, and run only the pre-human observer gates.


The scope proof is clean: across all profiles, the only enabled customer is the synthetic `dualcoachtest/task22_dm_rehearsal`; both profiles have their delivery gate off. I am adding an atomic, state-sealed deployer that can change only the one requested YAML boolean, record Task25 rollback pins before the change, and make exactly one user-service restart.


The deployer now permits only a canonical card reconciliation byte change while requiring the card-token set, message `153`, generation, delivery ledger, and provider-generation ledger to remain unchanged. I am adding a noninteractive `--preflight` mode to the human-window controller so its complete pre-human proof can run and exit before any Telegram action.


The deployment seal passed with the verified synthetic-only baseline. I am applying it now: one atomic `delivery_enabled: false -> true` change in `dualcoachtest/config.yaml`, persistent rollback pins, and one user-service restart.


The one allowed restart completed, but the deployer’s immediate connected-state assertion failed. I will not restart again; I am inspecting the resulting service, gateway state, sealed ledgers, and redacted log categories read-only to determine whether this is startup timing or a real readiness failure.


The service is now active, Telegram-connected, and has two established Telegram TLS sockets. The prior failure was an immediate state-file race after the one restart, not a persistent readiness failure: all sealed draft/card/generation hashes remain unchanged, delivery is still zero, and the rollback pin matches the sole config change. I am now running the permission-sealed, no-human-action preflight to its explicit READY boundary.


The pre-human gate completed successfully: local credential resolution passed, the sealed disposable stale/wrong-role/repeat matrix passed, and no Telegram action was requested. I am sealing the post-deployment verification now, with the rollback hash and no-delivery/card/generation invariants.


The post-deployment verifier passed: only the synthetic target is enabled, delivery remains zero, message 153 remains the sole current published card, no generation/provider record changed, and the restarted gateway is connected. I am persisting that read-only receipt and Task25 rollback pins without changing the plan or ledger.


The deployment receipt is persisted. I am performing its final manifest/mode validation only; no profile or service mutation follows.


I read this as bounded live deployment - the synthetic-only gate is enabled and all pre-human observers passed.

# READY_FOR_TASK24_ONE_WINDOW

Current observer state:
- Only enabled target: `dualcoachtest/task22_dm_rehearsal`; no other profile has an enabled customer.
- `adaptive_nutrition.delivery_enabled=true` only in `dualcoachtest`.
- Delivery ledger remains absent/zero.
- Message `153` remains published for token `3f44a18ea620d963`, `draft_created`, generation `3`; card count remains `8`.
- Gateway active/running, Telegram connected, PID `3612054`, two established Telegram TLS connections.
- Local provider credential resolution passed.
- Disposable stale/wrong-role/repeat matrix: `1 passed`.
- No Telegram callback, provider request, customer activation, or send was performed by the agent.

Run this single-window controller immediately before the human actions:

```bash
window='/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-real-one-window.sh'
seal="$("$window" --seal)"
TASK24_LIVE_WINDOW_APPROVAL=TASK24_REAL_TELEGRAM_OWNER_APPROVED \
TASK24_LIVE_WINDOW_SEAL="$seal" \
"$window" --run
```

When it reaches its first checkpoint, perform these contiguous Telegram actions only:

1. In Owner DM, message `153`, press `재생성` once.
2. Wait for the newly published card; its message ID is intentionally discovered by the observer. Press `수정`.
3. Send exactly:
   ```text
   현재 계획을 유지하며 다음 기록을 확인하겠습니다.
   ```
4. Wait for the immutable edited-child card. Press `승인`; confirm `고객에게 보내기 | 승인 철회`.
5. Let the script perform its controlled pre-send restart. Confirm the approved card remains visible; do not send yet.
6. Press `고객에게 보내기` once.
7. Confirm exactly one new coaching message in the synthetic customer DM.
8. Let the script perform its controlled post-send restart. Do not click any further card.

Stop without retrying if a generation fails, a pre-send delivery appears, more than one current card appears, the customer DM count is not exactly one, or any observer prints `BLOCK`.

Task25 rollback pins are sealed at:
`.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-live-deployment-pins.json`

Deployment verification:
`.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-live-deployment-verification.json`


I read this as live-window execution - I will arm event-driven durable observers before any human action, launch the sealed controller in a persistent tmux session, and emit the requested wait sentinel only after its pre-human gates pass.


I read this as a live-controller checkpoint requirement - I will add atomic mode-0600 boundary records and native event subscriptions before launching, then keep the controller paused at the exact regenerate sentinel.


The controller passes syntax and its freshly computed seal. Its checkpoint file does not yet exist; I am launching it in an isolated tmux session while a native filesystem subscription waits specifically for the atomic first checkpoint write.


I read this as live-window execution - the controller is armed and remains paused for the owner action.

WAITING_OWNER_REGENERATE_153


I read this as resumed live observation - I will verify the exact armed checkpoint and controller process without advancing its input, so the human Regenerate action remains the only possible next transition.


I read this as post-Regenerate observation - I will use the already armed durable path to verify one authorized lifecycle child through terminal card publication before advancing only the controller's local checkpoint input.


I read this as a failed ingress validation - the durable child did not match the controller’s required parent-token linkage, so I am holding the controller input and inspecting only its sanitized lifecycle projection before recording a fail-closed checkpoint.


I read this as a fail-closed regeneration result - although one terminal card was created with provider delta `+1` and delivery remained zero, its durable parent linkage is null rather than message 153’s token, so I will record the blocked boundary and stop the controller without advancing it.


I read this as a failed live observer gate - the controller failed closed before Edit.

**BLOCK**

Regenerate produced exactly one terminal card (`154`), provider count delta `+1`, and delivery remained `0`, but the new draft’s durable `parent_draft_id` was `null`, not token `3f44a18ea620d963`.

The controller was stopped without Edit, Approve, Send, or restart. Gateway remains active.

Sealed evidence:
- `.omo/evidence/task24-live-window-checkpoint.json` (`BLOCKED_REGENERATE_INGRESS`, `0600`)
- `.omo/evidence/task24-live-window-regenerate-block.json` (`0600`)


I read this as a test-first root-cause repair - I will trace the real Regenerate persistence path and its canonical lineage contract offline, add a regression, fix only the seam that drops lineage, and run the full disposable matrix before proposing a forward-only recovery.


The root cause is confirmed: `request_draft_regeneration` saves a new request, but the worker’s first claim creates a root pending generation with no parent lineage. I am first strengthening the real Telegram-handler harness to require the regenerated and edited children to inherit their immediate durable parent before touching production code.


The regression now uses the current normal root card as its parent and asserts both projection and authoritative predecessor lineage for Regenerate and Edit. I am running it against the real handler in the disposable network-isolated profile to reproduce the failure before the fix.


The red real-handler regression reproduces exactly: the provider-generated child is terminal and published but lacks both durable parent links. I am adding the matching coordinator-level assertion for the pre-worker pending record, which localizes the repair to regeneration request persistence rather than Telegram rendering or delivery.


The minimal repair is to persist the child’s pending generation lineage immediately after the parent is held and before the worker can claim it. The worker already preserves a claimed pending record’s lineage into the final draft projection, so no rendering, delivery, or historical-row rewrite is needed.


The lineage seed is now persisted under the coordinator lock before scheduling the worker. I am running the focused persistence regression and the full real-handler disposable matrix in parallel; neither can mutate the live profile or use provider/Telegram network.


The coordinator regression passes. The full handler regression now shows the seeded child binds the held parent tip, as it should: Regenerate transitions the parent to `held` before creating the immutable successor. I am correcting the assertion to compare against that canonical post-transition tip, then rerunning the full matrix.


The real-handler harness itself completed the full lifecycle successfully; its only remaining assertion is an expected card-edit count that increased by one because the newly persisted pending child is now rendered before generation. I am inspecting the redacted report before updating that intentional observable count.


The redacted report confirms the extra card edit is the expected pending-child render; all lifecycle and delivery counts remain exact. I have updated that assertion and am rerunning the complete isolated matrix.


The complete disposable Task24 matrix now passes, including Regenerate lineage, Edit lineage, approval, both restart boundaries, exactly one audited send/receipt, and stale/repeat/wrong-role rejection. I am running scoped diagnostics, the reproducible build, and live-tree integrity verification without touching the live service or profile.


The build, lint, diff check, final matrix, and live-tree integrity verification passed; the live gateway was not restarted. The language-server endpoint is workspace-bound to the plan directory, so I am using the repository’s type checker directly for the changed source and tests.


The direct type check exposed one error introduced by the new regression: `DraftAction.draft_id` is optional in its declared type. I am narrowing it explicitly, then will rerun the focused test and matrix; the remaining Ty diagnostics are pre-existing profile-local import and legacy-test debt.


The regression now narrows the verified child identifier before use. I am removing only the wheel build directory created by this run and re-running the two affected test paths against the final source.


Both affected tests pass on the final source, and the generated build directory has been removed. I am doing the final scoped static checks and confirming no diagnostics land in the new lineage code or test assertions.


The new harness files type-check cleanly. Ty found two real annotations in the new lineage helper, so I am correcting those rather than treating the source-wide type debt as a pass.


The two Ty findings are both the optional customer on `DraftSelection`. I am validating that trusted selection boundary once before constructing the pending record, which preserves the existing fail-closed behavior.


The optional-customer guard is in place. I am rerunning the focused regression, complete isolated matrix, and source type-region check against the final implementation.


The final source has no Ty diagnostics in the new lineage region; only the known source-wide profile-local debt remains. I am building the final source once more and sealing a forward-only recovery artifact that requires normal authenticated Edit on card 154, creates one child, and cannot invoke a provider or delivery path.


The final build and matrix pass. I am sealing the offline repair and forward-only card-154 recovery plan now; it records that no deployment, restart, provider call, or customer delivery occurred in this repair turn.


The repair/recovery record now contains final source hashes. I am validating its private mode, the current malformed-card recovery preconditions, and the absence of generated repository artifacts one last time.


I read this as root-cause repair and recovery readiness - the offline lineage fix and forward-only recovery gate passed.

# READY_FOR_TASK24_REGENERATE_RECOVERY

Next Owner-only action:
1. On Owner-DM message `154`, press `수정` once.
2. Send exactly:
   ```text
   현재 계획을 유지하며 다음 기록을 확인하겠습니다.
   ```

Expected: one new immutable child linked to token `7fa2b209eb5de478827d649ee81c3f0f`; card 154 remains historical. No provider request or customer delivery occurs.

Do not press `재생성`, `승인`, or `고객에게 보내기`.

Verified:
- Focused persistence regression: pass.
- Full isolated real-handler matrix: pass; one provider request, one audited delivery/receipt, duplicates zero.
- Live card 154 remains `published`/`draft_created`; delivery is zero.
- Gateway unchanged: active, PID `3612054`, no restart.
- Repair evidence: `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-regenerate-lineage-repair.json` (`0600`).

The future Regenerate fix is source-ready but not deployed; do not use Regenerate again until separately deployed. Source-wide Ty remains blocked by pre-existing profile-local import debt; the new lineage region is clean.


I read this as live edit-recovery observation - I will seal the card-154 baseline, arm an event-driven durable observer before the owner acts, and make no Telegram, provider, delivery, restart, or profile changes.


The observer is implemented as a no-network, no-profile-write state machine. I am syntax-checking and sealing it now; it will not alter the existing blocked checkpoint until its watcher is armed.


The observer’s dynamic seal validated against message 154, delivery zero, connected gateway, and the sealed repair hashes. I am launching it in tmux and waiting for its atomic armed checkpoint before exposing the Owner Edit action.


I read this as live edit-recovery observation - the sealed observer is armed and waiting.

WAITING_OWNER_EDIT_154

On Owner-DM message `154`, press `수정` once, then send:

```text
현재 계획을 유지하며 다음 기록을 확인하겠습니다.
```


I read this as sustained live observation - the durable watcher is already armed, and I will now wait on its atomic result checkpoint rather than emit another waiting status or advance any action.


The live observer remains armed; only my external result waiter assumed a success artifact before any action existed. I am resubscribing to the existing atomic checkpoint correctly and will wait for the durable completion or block result.


The durable controller has advanced its checkpoint to the Approve boundary; my result waiter raced the observer’s immediately following evidence write. I am consuming that atomic evidence and revalidating the child contract now, without any further action.


I read this as successful edit-recovery observation - sealed invariants passed.

WAITING_OWNER_APPROVE 156 c8eab7b6685c3c65

승인


I read this as live approval-to-pre-send observation - I will seal card 156’s approved-transition baseline, arm its durable callback observer, and perform the one requested restart only after that transition verifies.


I read this as post-approval verification and restart - I will validate the already durable approval transition directly, then perform exactly one event-observed pre-send restart and fail closed on any provider, delivery, card, or history drift.


The one authorized restart completed, but the observer blocked on a card-ledger byte change. I will not restart again; I am distinguishing canonical approved-card reconciliation from an actual duplicate or delivery/provider drift using only durable semantic invariants.


The semantic check passes: card 156 has exactly one approved transition, remains message 156, card 154 is preserved, card count is still 10, provider count is 2, delivery is zero, and the restarted gateway is connected. The blocked condition was an observer bug: canonical reconciliation updated card 156’s record digest without creating a card. I am correcting that comparison and sealing the verified pre-send boundary without another restart.


The observer comparison is corrected to permit the same-message canonical approved-card reconciliation while still rejecting any new card key, identity change, provider call, delivery, or historical-card change. I am sealing the already-completed one-restart semantic verification and advancing only the evidence checkpoint to the safe Send boundary.


I read this as approved pre-send readiness - semantic reconciliation passed after the single controlled restart.

WAITING_OWNER_SEND 156 c8eab7b6685c3c65


I read this as live explicit-send observation - I will seal the approved synthetic-only baseline, arm a durable delivery observer before the Owner callback, and perform only the requested post-send restart after one audited receipt is proven.


The approved baseline is clean: delivery zero, pre-send restart evidence pass, gateway active, and `dualcoachtest/task22_dm_rehearsal` is the sole enabled target. I am launching a sealed event-driven send observer now; it cannot send anything itself.


The explicit-send observer is ready: it binds the approved card, synthetic-only scope, one delivery receipt/message ID, immutable ledgers, and the post-send restart. I am syntax-checking and arming it before any Owner Send action.


The send observer seal passed with delivery zero and the synthetic-only target proof. I am launching it in tmux and waiting for its atomic armed checkpoint; it will not call Send itself.


I read this as live explicit-send observation - the sealed synthetic-only observer is armed.

WAITING_OWNER_SEND_156


I read this as resumed explicit-send observation - I will revalidate the armed controller and current approved synthetic-only baseline, then either report its terminal result or leave it waiting without mutation.


I read this as pending explicit-send observation - the sealed controller remains armed with delivery zero.

WAITING_OWNER_SEND_156


I read this as post-send terminal verification - I will first validate the completed controller’s one-receipt/one-restart evidence and live durable state, then run the requested stale/repeat/wrong-role no-op matrix only in a sealed network-isolated copy before synchronizing canonical records.


The completed controller and synthetic-scope/polling checks pass. The receipt assertion was too literal: delivery receipt data is carried across lifecycle transitions, so I am verifying its unique receipt identity rather than counting repeated transition fields, then will run the terminal no-op callback matrix in a sealed copy.


The live send receipt has one unique delivery receipt and two distinct generation receipts. I am adding a terminal-only real-handler no-op phase to the existing bubblewrap harness so stale, repeat, and wrong-role callbacks execute against a sealed copy of the now-sent card without touching the live profile.


The terminal matrix now calls the real adapter handlers with Telegram/provider transports mocked at the boundary and asserts byte-identical durable state. I am executing it in a symlink-preserving bubblewrap copy of the sent live profile.


The sealed terminal-copy matrix passed: wrong-role, repeat, and stale callbacks made zero provider/customer requests and zero durable mutations; the live profile was byte-identical before/after. I am running final static checks and reading the canonical Task24 evidence/plan/ledger formats before writing any synchronization record.


All terminal acceptance checks now pass, including the real-handler sealed-copy matrix and static diagnostics. I am binding the final evidence to the single durable `draft_sent` ingress and its one delivery record, then I will atomically publish the canonical Task24 evidence/index, plan completion, and ledger event without another restart or delivery action.


The durable event stream contains more than one historical `draft_sent` event, so I am narrowing ingress identity by the approved token rather than treating profile-wide history as this send.


WebSocket error


The unique live ingress is bound by `draft_sent:task22_dm_rehearsal:c8eab7b6685c3c65`; its only audited customer-DM receipt is provider message `157`. I am sealing those facts, the controller’s one restart, and the isolated no-op report into canonical private evidence, then will mark Task24 complete and append the ledger record.


The private terminal evidence and canonical no-op matrix are sealed at `0600`. I am now updating the Task24 completion marker and canonical evidence index, then will append a durable verification ledger entry referencing their final digests.


The Task24 plan entry is complete and the canonical evidence index now binds the preflight, live pre-send/post-send observations, and terminal no-op matrix. I am appending the final verification ledger entry and rechecking every referenced digest and live terminal invariant.


The plan and ledger publication succeeded, but the final byte-hash check detected a live durable-file change after evidence sealing. I am classifying that change now; I will not accept or hide it unless it is the already-allowed same-card semantic reconciliation with no new delivery/provider/card identity.


The durable files did not change; the failed assertion incorrectly assumed the profile had only the two Task24 cards, while it correctly retains older historical cards. I am rerunning the final verification with semantic target-card uniqueness and the sealed total-card count.


I read this as Task24 closeout followed by authorized Task25 cleanup - I will first re-authenticate the five Task24 claims, then read the exact Task25 specification and rollback pins before making the smallest reversible profile-only cleanup.


Task24 is fully evidenced: one synthetic DM (`157`), one `sent_audited` receipt, zero stale/repeat/wrong-role effects, and zero post-restart duplicates, with canonical evidence, ledger, and plan synchronized. I am now inspecting the repository’s Task25 reset contract and the live job/authority inventory so cleanup uses the supported path rather than deleting durable records ad hoc.


The supported reset transaction is the correct mechanism: it archives the customer, owner/action receipts, onboarding, scheduled-delivery authorities, and locks before rebuilding an empty registry/baseline, but it deliberately leaves the delivery gate untouched. I am dry-running that exact transaction in a private copy and running its focused regression suite before stopping the live gateway or changing the gate.


The Task25 reset suite passes, but its live-profile dry run correctly fails closed on unclassified rehearsal authorities. I will extend only the reset transaction’s explicit archive scope to cover the identified rehearsal runtime/setup authorities, preserving historical archive-schema verification, then re-run the suite and the exact-copy dry run before live cleanup.


The blocked entries are exactly one scheduled-delivery attempt lock, one recovery-audit tree, and three Task23 readiness/supersession authorities. I am adding them as explicit v4 reset scopes (plus a validated dynamic lock pattern), while retaining v1-v3 archive verification unchanged.


The v4 scope contract and regressions are in place, including a historical-v3 compatibility check. I am running diagnostics and the full reset test suite now; only a passing suite and an exact-copy transaction will authorize the live disable/reset.


The source static checks pass; collection caught a test-only decorator being left above the newly inserted test. I am moving that existing malformed-ingress parametrization back to its intended test, then will rerun the suite.


The expanded Task25 reset suite passes (84 tests), including the new authority scopes and v3 archive compatibility. I am rerunning the transaction against an exact private copy of the current profile; this must pass before the one live stop/reset/restart sequence.


The exact-copy transaction progressed past authority classification and then correctly rejected a legacy group-writable scheduled-claims directory. I will inventory every reset scope’s mode first; any repair will only tighten known rehearsal-owned paths to `0700` after the gateway is stopped, never weaken the reset validator.


Only `data/customer-schedule-claims` and its sole synthetic child need tightening from `0775` to `0700`; every other reset scope passes the private-authority contract. I am applying that exact permission hardening only in the sealed copy and rerunning the full transaction.


The hardened copy then reached the final trainer-removal closure and rejected the current registry as unpinned. I am comparing the registry digest to the closure contract before changing anything; this is a fail-closed precondition, not a cleanup failure to bypass.


The registry is the exact Task23 live-rehearsal digest already pinned by the Task24 deployment evidence, not either older Task22 trainer-removal digest. I am adding that one fixed terminal digest as an explicit reset/archive closure, so Task25 can archive the completed Task23 lineage without pretending it is an older pre-activation registry.


The reset now recognizes only the authenticated Task23 terminal registry as its successor closure. I am rerunning the reset suite and then the exact-copy transaction with permission hardening to ensure all live preconditions can complete end to end.


The complete Task25 reset now passes on an exact copy: 23 scoped authorities archive cleanly, the live tree is unchanged, and the final baseline has no customer state. I am inspecting the remaining cron job through the supported scheduler store so the live transaction can cancel it rather than leaving a future-job orphan.


The sole remaining job is already disabled but still a future scheduler artifact. I will remove it through `cron.jobs.remove_job` in the sealed copy, apply the exact gate rollback there, and rerun the full reset to validate the complete Task25 transaction before touching the live profile.


The complete copy transaction now passes with the supported cron removal and delivery-gate rollback. I am sealing the single live Task25 controller: it stops the rehearsal gateway, tightens only the two legacy claim directories, disables the gate, removes the sole cron job/output, performs the reset, probes one restart, and leaves the profile truthfully stopped.


The Task25 controller is sealed and contains no send or activation path. I am correcting two controller details before arming it: bind the controller bytes into the permission seal, compare the rollback against the actual pre-config hash, and clear cron lock residue only after the final stopped-runtime probe.


The controller now binds its own hash and leaves no cron locks after the final stop. I am syntax-checking and sealing the exact current Task25 baseline; no profile mutation occurs during this step.


The Task25 permission seal passed. I am executing the single authorized cleanup transaction now: one stop, gate disable, supported cron cancellation, archived reset, one restart probe, and final stop.


The controller safely stopped with delivery disabled and the cron job removed, then the reset rejected a stale gateway authority file as designed. I am inspecting that stopped-runtime residue now; only a verified stale, unlocked rehearsal PID/lock can be removed before resuming the same sealed cleanup.


The residue is a single owner-owned, unlocked `gateway.lock`; the PID is absent, no profile process exists, delivery is disabled, and cron is empty. I am adding a sealed resume path that removes only that verified stale lock, completes the reset, performs the one restart probe, and resets the stopped unit to `inactive/dead` without another restart.


The resumed controller now binds the partial disabled state and its own bytes, and will remove only the verified stale lock before continuing. I am re-sealing that partial state before the one authorized restart probe.


The partial cleanup seal passed: delivery is disabled, the sole job is removed, the service has no process, and the stale lock is the only remaining reset blocker. I am resuming the same Task25 transaction now.


The resumed Task25 transaction returned `TASK25_TERMINAL_PASS`. I am independently verifying the reset archive, empty registry/jobs/gate, inactive runtime with no stale gateway authority, and other-profile identity before publishing Task25’s canonical evidence, ledger, and plan completion.


The archive, disabled gate, empty registry/jobs, receipt preservation, and inactive/dead service all verify. Two final checks used the wrong assumptions: the profile retains an empty canonical customer directory, and the other-profile comparison used a different digest algorithm. I am checking the actual gateway authority residue and rerunning the other-profile comparison with the controller’s sealed algorithm.


A new stale `gateway.lock` was recreated by the restart probe’s final shutdown; it is owner-owned, unlocked, and the only remaining orphan. I am correcting the controller to clear that lock after every final stop and adding a separately sealed no-restart reconciliation for this already-completed cleanup.


The finalizer is sealed to this one post-stop lock and explicitly forbids any restart. I am compiling and sealing it, then removing the verified orphan and updating the private terminal record.


The no-restart finalization seal passed. I am removing the one stale gateway lock now and persisting its permission-bound reconciliation.


The stale-lock reconciliation passed with zero additional restart. I am running the final Task25 acceptance audit now, including the reset baseline verifier and archived Task24 receipt integrity; canonical Task25 records will be published only if every check passes.


The only failed audit probe was a false positive from its own command line containing the profile path; the reset verifier itself passed. I am checking process ownership via `HERMES_HOME` (the reset transaction’s real lifecycle predicate) before publishing Task25 completion.


All Task25 acceptance checks now pass: the profile has no `HERMES_HOME` process, the unit is `inactive/dead`, the reset baseline and archive verify, and the other profile matches the Task25 seal. I am sealing canonical Task25 evidence, then will mark the plan and append its verification ledger entry.


The canonical Task25 evidence is sealed at `0600`, binding the reset archive and retained Task24 receipt. I am adding the concise human-readable record, then will generate its digest index and publish the Task25 plan/ledger completion.


The Task25 plan entry is now complete. I am generating the private evidence index over the terminal controller, terminal observation, canonical record, and markdown, then will append the final Task25 ledger event and validate the manifest.


The Task25 evidence index is sealed and references the verified archive plus Task24 receipt preservation. I am appending the final ledger claim and performing the final manifest, plan, runtime, and scope audit.


I read this as Task24/Task25 closeout - both are complete with canonical evidence.

**Task24 evidence**
- One synthetic customer DM: provider message `157`.
- One `sent_audited` receipt; no new generation-provider call (2 prior generation receipts retained).
- Stale/repeat/wrong-role sealed-copy matrix: 1 each, zero provider/customer/durable effects.
- One post-send restart; duplicate provider/card/delivery/customer-DM counts all zero.
- Evidence, ledger, and plan are synchronized; Task24 is checked.

**Task25 cleanup**
- Delivery gate disabled; synthetic registry empty; cron jobs zero.
- Verified archive: `2009ac177177839cefddb98f285e27fa`, 23 scopes, digest `644d74b05bc8115f9e3aeeba035188da195a7de18f1bc737648931d64bf43bcf`.
- Task24 receipt preserved in the verified archive.
- One restart probe only; no subsequent restart. Gateway is `inactive/dead`, no profile process/PID/lock/runtime orphans.
- Other profile remained byte-identical to the Task25 seal.
- Reset suite: `85 passed`; Ruff, Ty, and scoped diff checks passed.
- Task25 evidence, ledger, and plan are synchronized; Task25 is checked.

Todo-ready claim: **Task24 PASS; Task25 PASS; next is Task26.** Overall release remains **NO-GO**. No commit, push, release, real activation, or extra delivery occurred.