I read this as a constrained verification task - I’ll read the authoritative plan and ledger, run only Gate 18, verify the service is inactive, and write a 0600 receipt.


FAIL - Gate 18 test passed (`1 passed`), but its executable test source is not sealed in the pinned manifest, so it cannot qualify as candidate-bound evidence.

- Service remains `inactive/dead`, `MainPID=0`.
- Manifest/wheel pins matched.
- Private receipt: `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-gate18-50685ac2c063c5b18fa895cc1991e3473368d177c7309bf54af0374ea67ba1d1-receipt.json`
- JUnit retained privately at `...50685ac2c063c5b18fa895cc1991e3473368d177c7309bf54af0374ea67ba1d1.junit.xml`


I read this as a diagnosis-only continuation of Gate 18 - I’ll trace the candidate sealer and source-closure rule, verify the service stays inactive, then write a private receipt without changing the verdict.


I read this as diagnosis-only completion - I will validate the private receipt and unchanged inactive state.


I read this as receipt verification - I will correct the validator expectation from the actual immutable prior receipt without changing any evidence.


I read this as final validation - I will validate the receipt against the actual prior-receipt hash and stop.


I read this as diagnosis-only completion - I traced source closure, recorded the private result, and stopped.

- Root cause: the sealer materializes `source_entries` only from its eight-item static `SOURCE_FILES`; it omits `tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py`.
- Adding only that test is insufficient. Pytest also executes `tests/__init__.py`, `tests/conftest.py`, `tests/gateway/__init__.py`, and `tests/gateway/conftest.py`; the latter scans all 365 `tests/gateway/**/test_*.py` files.
- Minimal correct patch: retain the eight core files; add the four pytest startup/package files; dynamically add sorted `tests/gateway/**/test_*.py`, fail if the Gate 18 node is absent, and seal the ordered de-duplicated union. Current unified closure: 375 entries, digest `70036a6a...`.
- Proposed regression: `.omo/senpi-task/task26/test_seal_dualcoach_provider_auth_candidate.py::test_gate18_source_closure_seals_pytest_startup_and_gateway_discovery_inputs`.

Private diagnosis receipt:
` .omo/evidence/task26/task26-gate18-50685ac2c063c5b18fa895cc1991e3473368d177c7309bf54af0374ea67ba1d1-source-closure-diagnosis.json`
mode `0600`, SHA-256 `fe0536d3...`.

Unified reseal inputs are recorded exactly in that receipt: repository, evidence root, profile, workspace receipt/index, output parent, eight core paths, four pytest startup paths, and the sorted 365-file gateway glob. A new `0600` PASS quality receipt and verified wheel are required; the existing Gate 18 FAIL receipt must not be reused.

Gate 18 remains **FAIL** with `UNBOUND_EXECUTABLE_GATE18_TEST_INPUT`. Service remains `inactive/dead`, `MainPID=0`; no source edits, reseal, rerun, provider request, Telegram action, or launch occurred.


I read this as an authorized Gate 18 repair and requalification - I will preserve Gate 19, implement and test the complete source closure, then create and validate a new inactive candidate without launching it.


I read this as implementation under an explicit new authorization - the repository is pre-existing dirty, so I will touch only the sealer, its regression, and new evidence while preserving the restored Gate 19 sources.


I read this as candidate construction - the closure regression is green and Gate 19’s restored adversarial source hash is unchanged; I will now build two isolated wheels from one frozen status snapshot.


I read this as the immutable-seal step - both fresh wheels are byte-identical and the status snapshot is stable, so I will seal exactly that 375-input closure now.


I read this as candidate validation correction - the candidate manifest is structurally complete; I will fix only the two read-only validator invocations before binding the runtime wheel.


I read this as runtime binding - the new candidate and reusable one-shot provider proof both verify, so I will install only the sealed local wheel into the inactive service venv.


I read this as inactive runtime attestation - the service venv now points at the new sealed wheel and the profile package matches its manifest; I will persist that binding before arming.


I read this as the authorized arm-only boundary - runtime binding is sealed, so I will create a distinct private arm receipt from the installed new-candidate controller without invoking launch.


I read this as the candidate-bound Gate 18 preflight - I will verify every sealed source and wheel parity first, then run the isolated golden path once with its local HTTP fake only.


I read this as final Gate 18 evidence validation - the isolated run passed; I will retain private artifacts and confirm post-run sealing, runtime binding, and inactive service state before issuing the PASS receipt.


I read this as completion verification - the new Gate 18 receipt is private and PASS; I will run final diagnostics and integrity checks without changing the inactive runtime.


I read this as verification cleanup - the regression test is diagnostic-clean, while the sealer retains unrelated legacy static-analysis findings; I will correct the two read-only reporting checks and leave sealed evidence untouched.


I read this as completed Gate 18 repair and validation - the new inactive candidate is sealed, bound, armed, and has a PASS receipt.

- Repaired pytest source closure and added deterministic regression coverage (`1 passed`).
- Built two byte-identical wheels; sealed candidate `5e6f2f2a...34b28f1` (wheel `6a3f5f04...fe12cbeb`).
- Bound the inactive service venv to that wheel, reused the verified zero-retry provider receipt, and armed without launch.
- Gate 18 passed (`1 passed`) with pre/post candidate verification and source-to-wheel parity.
- Final private (`0600`) receipt: `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-gate18-5e6f2f2a01321ac89c2950e511e7346d23070c51146c14c22c04db54034b28f1-receipt.json`
  SHA-256: `6d65eb8556321a144e7805b3eede44a7c9514af07420335fd396cc60a060175f`
- Gate 19’s restored adversarial source remains sealed; its historical verdict was not reused as a new-candidate verdict.
- Service remains `inactive/dead`, PID `0`; no provider request, Telegram action, launch, commit, or push occurred.

The new regression test has no diagnostics. The sealer retains unrelated legacy static-analysis diagnostics outside the closure change.


I read this as an authoritative arm-binding repair - I will verify the inactive runtime and exact inputs, then replace only the global arm receipt through the supported arm command.


I read this as supported-command validation - the global receipt is confirmed stale while the new wheel is installed; I will inspect the controller’s private-write and binding checks, then perform the single authorized replacement.


I read this as the authorized atomic replacement - all controller prerequisites and the new candidate verify pass, so I will overwrite only the authoritative arm path with the supported installed-controller command.


I read this as post-rearm proof - the supported command returned READY_FOR_CLEAN_WINDOW and atomically replaced the global file; I will validate exact bindings and persist a private no-effects re-arm receipt.


I read this as completed authoritative arm repair - the global arm receipt now binds the current sealed candidate.

- Authoritative receipt updated atomically at `/home/cube/.local/state/dualcoach-task26-controller/arm-f9a46172386333a0067f43695fb1429a043a606f04baceb06e8c59b90c36235c.json`
  - Manifest SHA: `0422f192...d801dc08`
  - Wheel SHA: `6a3f5f04...fe12cbeb`
  - Receipt SHA: `acec4443bc0aabd12b9e44f247fdd6239094da675a601ac80ce15ac2d17f0d93`
  - Mode: `0600`
- Status: `READY_FOR_CLEAN_WINDOW`.
- Verified installed runtime wheel equality, inactive/dead service with PID 0, zero profile processes, and unchanged zero-delivery/zero-customer profile snapshot.
- Private re-arm receipt: `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-authoritative-controller-rearm-5e6f2f2a01321ac89c2950e511e7346d23070c51146c14c22c04db54034b28f1-receipt.json`
  - SHA-256: `202d08a09942cc67d2a04b140b19e08fd529bbcec3ef0199160672130df7186b`
  - Mode: `0600`

No provider request, source edit, reseal, launch, service start, Telegram action, commit, push, release, or activation occurred.