I read this as a hands-on final QA/provenance review - I’ll inspect the immutable candidate and prior evidence, run only disposable offline handler checks for the PID/controller changes, then write the required redacted receipt.


I read this as final hands-on QA closure - I completed the offline PID/controller checks and preserved the redacted receipt.

**PASS - QA only, not release authorization.**

- **P0 PID safety:** source and sealed-wheel lanes each passed 19 selected controller/PID/runtime-health tests; legacy/non-gateway PID and PID-reuse guards passed.
- **P1 controller fail-closed:** sealed-wheel production CLI rejected an invalid arm receipt with `NO_GO`; no service start occurred.
- **P2 provenance/cleanup:** verified Task22/23/24/25 indexes and referenced hashes, Task24 exactly-once evidence, Task25 cleanup evidence, and the 23-scope archive binding.

Candidate pre/post verification was identical. Relevant source/wheel pins match; only successor delta is `gateway/status.py`. Historical Task22-25 execution remains explicitly **not retargeted** to this successor, so no live rerun was required or performed.

Receipt: `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-hands-on-final-653cc2f0.redacted.json`
SHA-256: `c5d69054c75baf920e31afcaf7e73e220b8d7e290864fa23bfc422c91848c0a0`
Mode: `0600`

All disposable roots removed. No source/candidate edits, live profile/service/archive mutations, Telegram/provider/customer actions, or Git mutations.