I read this as a final evidence-only compliance review - I will audit the immutable candidate and append one redacted PASS/FAIL receipt without changing runtime or historical records.


I read this as a final evidence-only compliance review - I completed the audit and recorded the fail-closed result.

**FAIL / NO-GO** for objective/constraint lane on candidate `653cc2f0b47873e95f985ea3eb32b8f2c044d6de64cd9e8fe37ebcec67c7a723`.

- Receipt: `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-objective-final-653cc2f0.redacted.json`
  - SHA-256: `60cab4c4760949f867d287b5c1fb32ba49616bffb7ac923609812a9ea86c8c9e`
  - Mode: `0600`
- Candidate manifest: `.../task26-repaired-archive-successor-653.../candidate-manifest.json`
  - SHA-256: `23b72148af7412b292555107c6b29616d9436c437871787763667c9fb62fca26`
- Gates passed and candidate-bound:
  - Gate18 `589223e0d391346939dccbb79351b3d408a07351bb9218c4496e28b851814e5a`
  - Gate19 `00bdaf0186437e9b93ca9fe2badd3f6a4db5fd8c4cf5b69c66135bb7245fd688`
  - Gate20 `643970f32ef2f1e841ff2a43b28270e8ec539033026f832303955209f392d541`

Decisive findings:
1. No exact-`653c` real-surface lifecycle receipt exists. Task22-25 archive evidence is explicitly historical-only (`historical_execution_retargeted_to_successor=false`) and cannot satisfy invariant 10 for the successor.
2. The global no-shortcut condition is unproven: Task22 explicitly records `global_no_recovery_shortcut_criterion=not_claimed`; no candidate-bound cross-task normal-surface receipt closes it.

Candidate drift: none observed within Gates18-20; pre/post verifier, source closure, wheel parity, and status snapshots were stable. No fresh Git/source inspection was performed.

Cleanup/non-touch: Gate20 records inactive/dead, `MainPID=0`, and zero service actions; historical Task25 cleanup is retained only as history. No source, profile, runtime, archive, service, network, Telegram, provider, or Git action was taken; only the receipt was created.


I read this as a read-only policy interpretation request - I will reconcile the plan's exact-candidate and no-shortcut rules with the handoff's historical-evidence boundary.


I read this as a read-only remediation-boundary interpretation - I compared the exact-candidate, real-surface, and historical-evidence rules.

**No.** A candidate-bound disposable replay through production handlers is valuable compatibility/regression proof, but it cannot close both blockers for a release verdict.

- **What it can prove:** exact-candidate handler behavior against authenticated historical inputs, source/wheel parity, fail-closed paths, and that no archive was restored or retargeted. This is compatibility proof.
- **What it cannot prove:** a new real Telegram normal-path execution on the exact candidate. It is still a replay, not the customer/owner Telegram interaction required by the plan.

Plan requirements are explicit:

- `.omo/plans/dualcoach-production-readiness.md:27-29` requires the lifecycle to work through **real Telegram surfaces** without listeners, direct JSON mutation, ledger deletion, service replay, or forced publication.
- `:114-115` invariant 10 requires production-release evidence from the **exact immutable candidate being reviewed**.
- `:710-735` requires Task22 to be driven through real Telegram and declares raw listener, service replay, direct mutation, or forced republication a rehearsal failure.
- `:749-770` requires the real staff Telegram card, explicit send, and observation of the customer DM; `:766` says every action uses Telegram, not direct service calls.
- `:1093-1103` requires both no normal-path recovery shortcut and intended-DM delivery observation; anything less is **NO-GO**.

The handoff reinforces rather than waives this:

- `...handoff.md:14-15`: Task23-25 historical receipts do **not** establish readiness for a later source tree.
- `:80-88`: the archive must be consumed as historical evidence and must not be restored or retargeted; this avoids repeating onboarding solely to prove an already-completed binding.
- `:142-146`: historical artifacts cannot retroactively claim execution on a future digest; incomplete clean-path/real-surface evidence requires rerun or explicit closure.
- `:152-162`: no live rehearsal is currently authorized; future validation is offline/disposable unless explicitly extended.

Therefore, under the current governing artifacts:

1. A disposable production-handler replay may close a **candidate compatibility** gap without retargeting history.
2. It does **not** close invariant 10 or the final no-shortcut/real-surface release condition.
3. A plan-compliant release needs an exact-candidate live synthetic customer/owner Telegram rehearsal with actual intended-DM delivery - unless the governing plan is explicitly amended to waive or redefine those acceptance criteria.
4. That live work is currently prohibited; it would require fresh explicit authorization. It need not mean restoring the archive, creating a fourth bootstrap invite, or redoing onboarding merely to re-prove the archived customer binding.