I read this as a sealed-candidate code-quality audit - I’ll verify the declared closure and evidence under offline, cache-isolated, read-only conditions, then append exactly one redacted receipt.


The sealed manifest and Gate20 bundle are present; I’m now resolving their declared source/test closure against the actual repository and the prior quality failures before running isolated validators.


I read this as an authority-lineage override - I’ll verify whether the post-launch repair invalidates 5e6f despite its frozen status artifact, then fail closed and stop broad validation if confirmed.


Authority invalidation is confirmed: the repaired controller and regression test differ from the sealed closure, and the repair receipt explicitly marks 5e6f invalid. I’m stopping broad tests and recording a FAIL/NO-GO receipt with the lineage and non-touch evidence.


I read this as a completed authority-lineage audit - report the fail-closed result and receipt.

**FAIL / NO-GO**

Critical finding: post-launch evidence proves candidate `5e6f...b28f1` starts without a recoverable owner review. The repair receipt explicitly invalidates it.

Additional findings:
- High: 2/375 sealed closure leaves drifted: controller and its regression test.
- High: candidate-bound strict type/Ruff/compile closure is incomplete.
- Moderate: Gate20 predates the adverse runtime discovery.
- Moderate: repair receipt contains a sealed-controller hash typo.

Broad tests stopped after decisive invalidation. No product, test, profile, runtime, Git, network, or build mutations were made.

Receipt:
`/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/task26/task26-code-quality-final-5e6f2f2a.redacted.json`

SHA-256: `5dc650507ceed203dbf883fa89dc21914953917a6c09fe63a08d90183029086b`