I read this as an evidence-only implementation and live adjudication task - I’ll trace the claim state machine and v3 mismatch, add a separate append-only one-shot adjudicator with deterministic tests, verify it fully, then run only its read-only live path.


I’ve confirmed the v3 failure is a stale pre-claim invariant: its replacement helper requires `customer_user_id is None`, while the canonical atomic claim sets that field before the same handler proceeds through registration and consent publication. I’m now pinning the exact post-claim authority footprint and transition digests; any requested absence that contradicts the candidate’s semantics will fail closed rather than be reinterpreted.


The authority footprint exposes a hard contradiction in the requested PASS predicate: the candidate’s normal path must create one disabled registry row before transitioning `REGISTERING -> AWAITING_CONSENT`, and the live registry contains exactly that row. I’ll still deliver the requested fail-closed adjudicator and verification suite; its live receipt must be `FAIL` rather than falsely issuing `PASS_SUCCESSFUL_CLAIM`.


Implementation is complete and the deterministic suite now passes. I’m sealing and running final static/compile checks, then the one live read-only execution; based on the proven registry row, the expected correct outcome is a sealed fail-closed receipt, followed by an independent verifier confirming that no false PASS was issued.


I read this as completed evidence-only adjudication - the harness, verification, and live read-only receipt are sealed.

**Result: FAIL — do not return `PASS_SUCCESSFUL_CLAIM`.**

The successful claim itself is proven, but the required “no customer registry row” predicate is false:

- Exactly one disabled registry row exists for `task26_live_2e_r2_20260815_8527916639`.
- Candidate semantics require creating that row before `AWAITING_CONSENT`.
- No activation, check-in, generation, or delivery authorities exist yet.
- Live authority fingerprint remained unchanged.

Canonical transitions:

1. `PREPARED/g1`
2. Atomic claim: `REGISTERING/g2`, role claim message 158, `customer_user_id=8527916639`
3. Disabled registry row created
4. `AWAITING_CONSENT/g3`
5. Owner-binding durable rewrite
6. Consent reservation: attempt 1, `g4`
7. Recovery reservation: recovery generation 1
8. Receipt binding: card 159, `AWAITING_CONSENT/g4`

The v3 observer failed because it retained the pre-claim requirement `customer_user_id is None`.

Verification:

- Tests: `9 passed`
- Ruff: PASS
- LSP errors: 0
- Compile: PASS
- Independent verification: `PASS_VERIFIED_FAIL_CLOSED`
- Preparation ledger reconstruction: exact `c7c53db4...`
- Current ledger digest: exact `a9b73fcd...`
- Raw token found only in the sealed private handoff
- Existing v3 files unchanged

Evidence: `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-post-claim-adjudicator-st_01a007d9/`


I read this as an append-only contract correction and live re-adjudication - I’ll preserve v1 untouched, derive a v2 contract around the candidate-required disabled registry row, TDD its provenance and downstream-absence checks, seal it independently, then execute only the read-only live path.


The corrected contract now passes its deterministic suite: the row is validated as the exact candidate projection, disabled and unconsented, while all downstream activation/check-in/generation/delivery authorities remain absent. I’m sealing v2 against the zero-row pre-claim receipt, both ledger states, candidate registration bytes, and the immutable v1 inventory before the final live run.


I read this as a completed append-only v2 correction - the clean live result is sealed below.

`PASS_SUCCESSFUL_CLAIM_AND_DISABLED_REGISTRATION`

Proven:

- Exactly one canonical disabled registry row for the specified customer and actor.
- Zero activation, check-in, generation, or delivery authorities.
- Zero-row preparation baseline `c7c53db4...` progressed through candidate claim registration to current ledger `a9b73fcd...`.
- Exactly one role claim, consent publication attempt, and card 159.
- Service active with exact candidate bytes.
- No raw token leakage or profile mutation.
- All v1 FAIL artifacts unchanged.

Verification:

- Tests: 13 passed
- Ruff: PASS
- LSP errors: 0
- Compile: PASS
- Independent verification: 27 checks passed

Sealed evidence: `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-post-claim-adjudicator-v2-st_01a007d9/`


I read this as a read-only hash lookup - I’ll return only the requested relative file/hash pairs.


task26-post-claim-adjudicator-v2-st_01a007d9/verification-receipt-v2.redacted.json  0097f86d07280f354a52f7453f684f7eb2f11fa9cf443dbfb5942d3d3fd9e41d
task26-post-claim-adjudicator-v2-st_01a007d9/live-adjudication-v2.redacted.json  95d614d0f0f36a94ccf920b58920e3ddff26bb78fd7a2eabcc719ffa0244e76c
task26-post-claim-adjudicator-v2-st_01a007d9/post_claim_adjudicator_v2.py  1ee766c54ee881c4b64dc55e5484bed4871024e7d513eec1c47bc7f631ed8889
task26-post-claim-adjudicator-v2-st_01a007d9/hashes-v2.json  16244181ae1befbdc4719e6d5a0441c34f78f2ed6d7daf07ddc2be9fd8473667