I read this as an independent QA verification - I will inspect the sealed evidence and offline harnesses, rerun only disposable checks, then issue a decisive PASS/FAIL without touching live Telegram or provider state.


I read this as an evidence integrity gate - the Task24 source manifest no longer binds the final harness bytes, so I will still rerun the terminal no-op matrix in an archive-derived, network-isolated copy to distinguish behavioral evidence from the provenance failure.


I read this as a bounded offline revalidation - the archive-derived callback rerun reached the handler but correctly failed on stale replay authority before dispatch; I will now verify the Task25 archive cryptographically and rerun its isolated reset suite under no-network containment.


I read this as a hands-on QA gate - I verified artifacts and offline checks, and found release-blocking evidence gaps.

**FAIL**

- Task24’s canonical evidence does not bind the final harness/test bytes: recorded harness hashes differ from current final harness `409746...`; no immutable final-candidate manifest joins source and terminal evidence.
- Archive-derived terminal no-op rerun failed before callbacks due stale readiness authority. It was network-isolated and left the live profile byte-identical, but cannot independently revalidate stale/repeat/wrong-role effects.
- Corroborated: Task24 artifacts are internally coherent (one explicit send, DM/provider message `157`, one `sent_audited`, restart duplicates zero); Task25 archive verifies, reset suite passed `85`, and cleanup is currently disabled/inactive with no jobs, delivery ledger, lock, PID, or profile process.

Receipt: `.omo/evidence/task26/hands-on-qa-review.json` (`0600`, SHA-256 `1def1d...`). No live Telegram, provider, customer, service, or profile mutation occurred.


I read this as an offline QA repair - I will first resolve the fresh candidate-manifest dependency, then make the terminal replay self-contained in a copied, no-network profile and rerun the complete matrix without touching live state.


I read this as an offline-only QA repair and release-gate validation request - I will rebuild the disposable authority and replay matrix, then bind the resulting evidence to a fresh candidate manifest.


I read this as offline-only Task24/25 QA repair - the manifest-bound QA gate now passes.

**PASS: Task24/25 offline QA**

- Task24 terminal replay passed under `bwrap --unshare-net`: wrong-role, repeat-send, stale-regenerate, and restart produced zero customer sends, provider requests, and durable mutations.
- Task25 revalidation passed: `85 passed in 5.29s`; archive verified with 23 scopes; current cleanup remains inactive/dead with zero enabled customers/jobs/processes.
- Fresh candidate digest: `9b102fdeb73c7dd5927734c208a633c03f14bd65698758408754f3d90faf4338`
- Independent verifier passed (`37` inputs).

Evidence:
- `.omo/evidence/task26/task24-task25-final-candidate-manifest.json`
- `.omo/evidence/task26/task24-terminal-replay-report.json`
- `.omo/evidence/task26/task25-offline-revalidation.json`
- `.omo/evidence/task26/hands-on-qa-review.json`

No live profile, Telegram, provider, service, release, commit, or push was mutated. This is a Task24/25 QA pass, not a whole-worktree release approval.


I read this as final-candidate QA holding and rerun preparation - I will preserve the accepted evidence, inspect readiness signals and the eventual sealed manifest, then rerun only the prescribed offline checks against that digest.


I read this as final-candidate QA holding - no final digest is sealed, so no PASS/FAIL is issued.

`st_019fff17` remains running without `READY_FOR_SECURITY_REAUDIT`; no reseal manifest or freeze receipt exists. The prior scoped QA evidence remains intact and `0600`; no live, network, profile, service, or Git action occurred.


I read this as final-candidate offline QA - I will authenticate the sealed candidate and checkpoint, rerun the candidate-bound no-network Task24/25 checks, verify no live mutation, then persist a scoped `0600` verdict.


message: WebSocket error

stop_reason: error


I read this as a supersession hold - I will preserve the c3b1 QA receipt and read-only findings unchanged, stop finalization, and await a newly stable checkpoint.


I read this as a supersession hold - c3b1 final QA is stopped and preserved without edits.

`task26-owner-v1-final-security-privacy-reaudit.redacted.json` is `SECURITY_REPAIR_FAIL` with four blockers. The c3b1 QA receipt remains unchanged (SHA-256 `2a74...556ea`); it is mode `0664`, so it is not a valid `0600` final receipt. No live, Git, Task27, or source actions occurred. Awaiting a new stable checkpoint.


I read this as final-candidate offline QA - I will authenticate the v2 checkpoint and sealed digest, rerun only isolated Task24/25 and mutation-zero checks, then write a new `0600` scoped verdict.


I read this as final-candidate offline QA - **FAIL** for `96e1...678e`.

The v2 checkpoint initially matched, but its sealed `owner_v1` candidate tree disappeared before stable-source authentication. Task24/25 execution was not run against unverifiable bytes.

Receipt: `.omo/evidence/task26/hands-on-qa-final-96e1a264fedca02b.redacted.json`
SHA-256: `93556fdba181771ff4620798641957f0a2214fb58926850f4a4002238507dd89`
Mode: `0600`

No live, network, Git, or Task27 actions occurred.


I read this as a QA stop-and-preserve request - I will leave the failure evidence unchanged, confirm the sealed root remains absent, and report this lane's actions without publishing a PASS.


I read this as a QA hold - no PASS was published.

This lane did **not** move or delete `owner_v1`; it performed read/hash checks and wrote only the `0600` FAIL receipt. The sealed root remains absent.

Preserved finding: `hands-on-qa-final-96e1a264fedca02b.redacted.json`
SHA-256: `93556fdba181771ff4620798641957f0a2214fb58926850f4a4002238507dd89`

Awaiting an immutable restored candidate.


I read this as final-candidate offline QA - I will authenticate the v3 checkpoint and recovered snapshot before executing isolated Task24/25 checks, then persist a new `0600` verdict only for that digest.


I read this as final-candidate offline QA - **PASS** for immutable snapshot `e880717e...c59ed`.

- Snapshot authentication passed before and after execution.
- Task24 bwrap production-handler matrix: `2 passed, 1 deselected`; exact counts, adverse callbacks, and terminal replay passed.
- Task25 no-network checks: `6 passed`; archive and append-only indexes verified.
- No live, Git, Task27, or candidate mutations.

Receipt (`0600`): `.omo/evidence/task26/hands-on-qa-final-e880717efeb8c56b.redacted.json`
SHA-256: `ed596ac59b6ffb839f2ff9f12304c121a0250af055a2e3338f956c1c4cdb70f8`

Two unsuppressed pytest unknown-marker warnings are recorded in the receipt.


I read this as final immutable-candidate offline QA - I will authenticate the requested digest and manifest before and after isolated Task24/25 checks, then persist a new `0600` scoped verdict without touching the snapshot.


I read this as final immutable-candidate QA - **PASS** for `2a0cd32e...583cb` with manifest `06ffc1e...08a29`.

- Snapshot authentication passed before and after.
- Task24 bwrap matrix: `2 passed, 1 deselected`; exact durable counts, replay, and adverse actions passed.
- Task25/acknowledgement checks: `12 passed`; archive/index integrity and mutation-zero audit passed.
- No snapshot, live, Git, or Task27 actions.

Receipt (`0600`): `.omo/evidence/task26/hands-on-qa-final-2a0cd32e520b092e.redacted.json`
SHA-256: `dc3514e7f2da416668186b94bc4417ce84b575183286fcdbac6206cc27c46997`

Two unsuppressed pytest unknown-marker warnings are recorded.


I read this as final immutable-candidate offline QA - I will authenticate the v5 snapshot before any execution, rerun only disposable no-network Task24/25 gates, authenticate again, and persist a `0600` scoped verdict.


I read this as final offline hands-on QA for immutable v5 candidate `80700cc...` - I will authenticate it, run the candidate-bound disposable network-isolated checks, re-authenticate it, and write only a scoped `0600` receipt.


I read this as final v5 QA evidence with a post-authentication discrepancy - I will preserve the snapshot, determine the exact immutable-seal drift, and issue the required scoped FAIL receipt rather than treat the earlier disposable passes as releaseable.


I read this as stopping v5 QA pending v6 - I will preserve the read-only FAIL findings and take no further v5 action.

v5 remains FAIL: non-reproducible digest, immutable permission drift, and Ty diagnostics. No PASS, snapshot mutation, release, or Task27 action was performed.