I read this as a read-only evidence audit - I’ll trace the candidate/customer-bound artifacts, independently validate all six assertions and every proposed receipt reference against current bytes, then return a strict PASS/FAIL matrix.


The first sweep surfaced prior proposed-checklist material inside session logs, which is explicitly non-proof. I’m excluding session/history artifacts now and narrowing to sealed evidence, plans/ledger, profile receipts, and authoritative docs/tests.


I have the decisive split: one assertion is contradicted by the sealed operating contract, two are unsupported or only partially documented, while the routing test and two operational-document assertions have existing evidence. I’m finishing the byte-level receipt-reference reconciliation and binding classification now.


I read this as a read-only evidence audit - I mapped each assertion to existing evidence, checked receipt references against current bytes, and applied a strict no-inference verdict.

## Verdict

**FAIL**

Exact missing assertions:

- `token_rotated`
- `provider_terms_checked` with provider terms version `privacy-v1`
- `withdrawal_deletion_doc`

The other three assertions have existing evidence, although `missend_test_passed` is candidate-bound rather than customer-specific.

## Assertion matrix

| Assertion | Result | Authoritative evidence and proof | Binding |
|---|---|---|---|
| `token_rotated` | **FAIL** | `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-runbook-rebind-2e0894ea-st_01a0054e/task26-golden-path-2e0894ea-v6.md`, SHA-256 `8416cd7c83cab5540af2e1e01dbcc5b1bdfd49a59d8ef21ea49512c28d749218`. Section 0 and Section 16 explicitly forbid “token or secret mutation.” Its G14 token-source `.env` still has current SHA-256 `154f588c89758c6ca6a1e06cc39ce9489d5c3ff8ace94e10e71cce919252bcca`, exactly the authoring hash. No rotation receipt exists. | Current bytes; runbook rebound to candidate `4e9962be` by `live-v5-ready.json`; not customer-specific proof of rotation. Evidence contradicts rotation during this window. |
| `missend_test_passed` | **PASS** | `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-gate20-corrected-harness-4e9962be.../artifacts/corrected-full-gateway.junit.xml`, SHA-256 `661a56cae33ea0de997327c2e43df829d87caf65a58b8c0dfe489a4aafbac922`. Contains passing cases with no failure child: `test_handle_text_rejects_wrong_user_chat_or_topic_before_publish` for wrong user/chat/topic, `test_review_callback_rejects_wrong_user_before_service_mutation`, and `test_registry_routes_keep_customer_dm_separate_from_staff`. The sealing receipt, SHA-256 `b8cb0789d1247e54e95349117b47b465aa19e816c32296c937d1777e4d7ecb9a`, binds the JUnit to full candidate `4e9962be...` and reports `8159` passed, `0` failures/errors. | Current candidate-bound; generic route fixtures, not specifically customer-bound. |
| `provider_terms_checked: {checked:true, version:"privacy-v1"}` | **FAIL** | Current customer receipt `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/data/customers/task26_live_2e_r2_20260815_8527916639/nutrition-onboarding/readiness-receipt-v1.json`, SHA-256 `10cf17fba0e0f60c43d0a379721b71a945ef2c4c168fff8f613c01448297edb4`, proves only `privacy_consent_version:"privacy-v1"` and consent digest. Neither this receipt nor the plans/docs/tests contains a provider terms/TOS review. Customer privacy consent is not provider-terms acceptance. | Current and customer-bound, but proves consent only; no provider-terms evidence. |
| `withdrawal_deletion_doc` | **FAIL** | `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent/docs/nutrition-coaching/customer-onboarding-ko.md`, SHA-256 `6fab0167b813ff2c2c66b8f8c77bf8acbdf8b45c6ceaa9dd5f71ec434e73597d`, documents the withdrawal phrase. `trainer-runbook-ko.md`, SHA-256 `d9c2704107ea3e4754286fc6bfa361039d057bbce333d2106b0ed3b1766a3332`, merely instructs the operator to record future “data retention/deletion guidance”; it does not provide an actual deletion procedure, scope, deadline, or confirmation process. | Current repository docs; neither sealed to `4e9962be` nor customer-specific. Withdrawal is documented, deletion is not. |
| `retention_backup_doc` | **PASS** | Golden Path v6, SHA-256 `8416cd7c...`, G11 and Sections 3/14 document retained-archive verification, archive-first backup, rollback boundary, byte-exact lifecycle archive, and preservation of historical archives. Candidate/customer observer `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-continuous-lifecycle-observer-v5-4e9962be/live-v5-ready.json`, SHA-256 `2ee3688d42c55e3267573a4220d18425181696a86dbdeab844d90132de124169`, binds `golden_v6:"8416cd7c..."`, successor `4e9962be...`, and the Task26 lifecycle. | Current, candidate-bound, and indirectly customer-bound through the observer’s fixed customer key. |
| `manual_fallback_doc` | **PASS** | `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-runbook-rebind-2e0894ea-st_01a0054e/task26-recovery-runbook-2e0894ea-v6.md`, SHA-256 `a2e15845764e7041957ae4518096fe73f87ec35b57021980cdd4df3ea18ac00d`, supplies R1-R16 operator recovery procedures and abort rules. `live-v5-ready.json` binds this exact `recovery_v6` digest to candidate `4e9962be...`; `continuous_lifecycle.py` fixes the customer key to `task26_live_2e_r2_20260815_8527916639`. | Current, candidate-bound, customer-bound through the sealed observer. |

## Proposed receipt-reference verification

- **Readiness receipt path:** exists and is a regular mode-600 file.
- **Readiness file SHA-256:** `10cf17fba0e0f60c43d0a379721b71a945ef2c4c168fff8f613c01448297edb4` — **matches**.
- **Embedded readiness digest:** `857f37c973156c3dcc574dc1dd566f3e4724ddf29c2d44f552184d56e94a1a99` — **matches** both the field and a canonical SHA-256 recomputation after removing `digest`.
- **Owner review receipt:** `c6ecd6cb55fd68989b04d60f5ef13491a821e261e43dc7c231d0d5fefa92262e` — **matches embedded references** in readiness, baseline, initial-plan, reconciliation, and adjustment-policy files. No standalone owner-review receipt file/path was found, so it is an embedded receipt identifier, not a verified file hash.
- **Ready path:** exists and is mode 600.
- **Ready file SHA-256:** `27906a0f33ac1fea128d88939c2d96ff53db0f43459ea90ad8812c446b09c611` — **matches**.
- **Authority digest:** `8856ca5146cd74a6e9ed05dcd06747a694cd4f8415ee0575d673d04c9e310f09` — **matches** `ready.json` and recomputes from the current registry customer/owner routes, `privacy-v1` consent, and disabled state using the canonical digest algorithm. Current registry SHA-256 is `26602b034c85260b07692c4b91681eb80852dd5923c79d693bb4e1c357bda5be`.

The proposed checklist path does not exist, and no current checklist or activation audit is bound to this customer. The hypothetical checklist SHA-256 therefore proves nothing.

No files, live state, services, network, Telegram, or Git state were modified. No tests were run; only existing sealed results were inspected.