I read this as an evidence-bound compliance review - I’ll inspect the active plan, ledger, bound candidate/seals/archive, inventories, raw evidence, and verifier outputs without modifying anything, then return PASS only if every clause is concretely proven.


I read this as a final evidence-only Task26 coverage audit - bind the supplied artifacts, map the requirements, and return PASS only if every clause is proved.

# Verdict: FAIL / NO-GO

The supplied hashes are authentic, and the terminal delivery/cleanup controls pass. The package does **not** prove one uninterrupted lifecycle on candidate `4a6c7ee5…1cb`, intended-surface customer observation, or completed Task26 review provenance.

## Severity-ordered findings

### CRITICAL — The complete lifecycle did not run on candidate `4a6c7ee5…1cb`

**Claim**

Even accepting this turn’s binding to `4a6c7ee54cf9526a30de8bb576c1d71b411938beba33a04914738f6e1b6ed1cb`, earlier lifecycle stages were completed under predecessor candidates. Candidate `4a6c7ee5…` was deployed after activation and check-in; only generation/review/delivery and cleanup are attributable to it.

The active amendment additionally pins candidate `2e0894ea…a925` and wheel `af4a9d0a…141b`, while the reviewed candidate uses wheel `9d22e89a…875`.

**Evidence**

- Amendment and uninterrupted-path requirement:
  `.omo/plans/dualcoach-production-readiness.md`
- Current candidate and wheel:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-customer-service-state-bootstrap-successor-4a6c7ee54cf9526a30de8bb576c1d71b411938beba33a04914738f6e1b6ed1cb/candidate-manifest.json`
- Deployment timestamp and installed bytes:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-certification-deployment-4a6c7ee54cf9526a30de8bb576c1d71b411938beba33a04914738f6e1b6ed1cb-st_01a00b39/receipts/deployment-receipt.json`
- Earlier activation/check-in chronology:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-live-lifecycle-evidence-seal-4a6c7ee5-st_01a00e44/lifecycle-evidence.json`
- Mid-lifecycle recovery under predecessor `f38d0373…`:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-telegram-poll-recovery-st_01a00d2c/FINAL-SEAL.json`
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-telegram-poll-recovery-st_01a00d2c/run-4/recovery-result.json`

This fails the revised objective, the amendment’s “uninterrupted normal path,” invariant 10, Task26’s fixed-candidate rule, F1, and F4.

**Remediation**

From an empty authenticated baseline, run the entire preflight-to-cleanup lifecycle on one newly authorized and explicitly pinned candidate/wheel, without candidate replacement or recovery-controller intervention. Resealing the existing lineage cannot repair this retrospectively.

---

### HIGH — Customer observation on the intended DM surface is unproved

**Claim**

The evidence proves Telegram accepted exactly one `sendMessage` and returned customer-DM message `232`. It does not contain a customer handset capture, inbound acknowledgment, or independent intended-surface observation of that message. A provider API result or derived `sent_audited` event is explicitly insufficient under invariant 9.

**Evidence**

- API send/result and message `232`:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-live-lifecycle-evidence-seal-4a6c7ee5-st_01a00e44/telegram-bot-api-events.jsonl`
- Derived lifecycle assertion:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-live-lifecycle-evidence-seal-4a6c7ee5-st_01a00e44/lifecycle-evidence.json`
- Current lifecycle inventory contains no screenshot/customer-surface artifact:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-live-lifecycle-evidence-seal-4a6c7ee5-st_01a00e44/inventory.json`
- Task22–24 capture and observation requirements:
  `.omo/plans/dualcoach-production-readiness.md`

This fails invariant 9, Specification 24’s “Customer observes exactly one message,” F4, and the completion audit.

**Remediation**

In the authorized replacement rehearsal, capture a hash-bound customer-DM artifact showing the single delivered message and correlate its chat, message ID, and timestamp to the durable receipt.

---

### HIGH — Task26 review lanes and their current-candidate input package are incomplete

**Claim**

There is no complete set of fresh PASS receipts for the six Specification 26 review concerns or F1–F5 against `4a6c7ee5…`. The plan still marks Task26 and F1–F5 unchecked. Existing lifecycle/cleanup independent verifications verify seals and state, not all release-review lanes.

The retained Golden Path/Recovery Runbook binding is for `2e0894ea…`, not `4a6c7ee5…`.

**Evidence**

- Unchecked Task26 and F1–F5:
  `.omo/plans/dualcoach-production-readiness.md`
- Ledger has no `4a6c7ee5…`, lifecycle seal, cleanup seal, or archive-root completion entry:
  `.omo/start-work/ledger.jsonl`
- Old runbook binding:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-runbook-rebind-2e0894ea-st_01a0054e/runbook-binding-receipt-v4.json`
- Historical review is a FAIL against unrelated candidate `96e1…`, not a current receipt:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-objective-constraint-final-audit-e880717f.redacted.json`
- Current lifecycle and cleanup integrity receipts only:
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-live-lifecycle-evidence-seal-4a6c7ee5-st_01a00e44/independent-verification.json`
  `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-post-lifecycle-cleanup-v3-4a6c7ee5-st_01a00e50/independent-verification-receipt.json`

This independently fails Specification 26 and F5.

**Remediation**

Bind current Golden Path and Recovery Runbook artifacts to the final candidate, assemble the required reviewer input package, obtain every independent PASS receipt, and then append immutable Task26/F1–F5 completion records to the ledger.

---

### HIGH — F5’s migrated-session requirement conflicts with the active fresh-lineage amendment

**Claim**

Specification 22 and F5 require a journaled migrated-session receipt. The later amendment prohibits restoration/prepopulation from historical sessions and requires a new customer/session lineage. The archived lifecycle follows the fresh-lineage model and contains no migrated-session receipt.

**Evidence**

- Conflicting amendment, Specification 22, and F5 clauses:
  `.omo/plans/dualcoach-production-readiness.md`
- Fresh session record:
  `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/data/post-lifecycle-cleanup-archives/task26-current-4a6c7ee5-20260817/payload/data/customers/task26_live_2e_r2_20260815_8527916639/nutrition-onboarding/session.json`
- Fresh projection history:
  `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/data/post-lifecycle-cleanup-archives/task26-current-4a6c7ee5-20260817/payload/data/nutrition-onboarding-projection-journal.jsonl`

**Remediation**

Before another rehearsal, explicitly resolve the governing contract: either supersede F5’s migrated-session receipt with fresh-lineage provenance, or require a separate exact-candidate migration exercise. The current clauses cannot all be satisfied by one lifecycle.

## Requested control results

| Control | Result | Opened evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate binding | **PASS** | Candidate verifier recomputed `4a6c7ee54cf9526a30de8bb576c1d71b411938beba33a04914738f6e1b6ed1cb` |
| Lifecycle seal | **PASS** | `SEAL.json` SHA-256 `50e7556e58a876d8136fbfb2023ede8bcb46ac816d97d4b85e1d0559f463d008` |
| Cleanup seal | **PASS** | `SEAL.json` SHA-256 `84d937ef67c1517bfdbca4cabce9fb4bfbe39aa1165458bb3aedd14decc4bff0` |
| Archive root | **PASS** | Recomputed `9f5d72840b4cc1fcb57720a61ebc53529fa00202d9201615e4ebdbb3e047a635`, 172 entries |
| Owner/operator sole authority | **PASS** | Owner `8693203710`; approval/send records use that authority; no trainer authority/artifacts |
| Approval separate from send | **PASS** | Approval committed with zero deliveries; separate explicit-send transition occurred later |
| Exactly one durable customer-DM delivery | **PASS** | One idempotency row `40f24646…0f3f`, one Telegram send, message `232`, one `sent_audited` result |
| Intended-surface customer observation | **FAIL** | No current-lifecycle handset/independent observation artifact |
| Disabled/clean poststate | **PASS** | Service inactive/dead, PID 0, customer runtime removed, no future work, adaptive activation/delivery false, unrelated profile unchanged |

Durable delivery evidence is in:

- `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/data/post-lifecycle-cleanup-archives/task26-current-4a6c7ee5-20260817/payload/data/owner-actions/draft-deliveries.json`
- `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-live-lifecycle-evidence-seal-4a6c7ee5-st_01a00e44/telegram-bot-api-events.jsonl`

## Objective and invariant mapping

- **Objective preflight → onboarding → readiness → activation → check-in:** behavior exists, but **FAIL as exact-candidate proof** because it predates `4a6c7ee5…`.
- **Automatic generation → draft → approval → explicit send:** **PASS on `4a6c7ee5…`**.
- **Exactly-once durable receipt:** **PASS**; intended-surface observation remains **FAIL**.
- **Safe disable and cleanup:** **PASS**.
- **No recovery shortcut/uninterrupted flow:** **FAIL** because the lifecycle includes the sealed polling recovery.

Invariant outcomes:

- I1 disabled/no delivery before activation: **behavior PASS; exact provenance invalidated**
- I2 zero delivery before approval: **PASS**
- I3 zero delivery after approval/before send: **PASS**
- I4 one provider message and one audited receipt: **PASS**
- I5 wrong/stale/duplicate callbacks do not mutate: **PASS in exact automated gates**
- I6 ACK failure cannot undo committed work: **PASS in exact automated gates**
- I7 provider-auth failure/preflight behavior: **PASS in automated evidence; live preflight predates final candidate**
- I8 restart preserves state/no duplicate: **PASS in automated evidence and sealed state**
- I9 durable receipt plus intended-surface observation: **FAIL**
- I10 exact immutable candidate release evidence: **FAIL**
- I11 owner/operator sole authority and trainer-free v1: **PASS**

## F1 / F4 / F5

- **F1: FAIL** — objective and invariants 9/10 are incomplete.
- **F4: FAIL** — one real API delivery is proved, but the lifecycle spans candidates/recovery and customer-surface observation is absent.
- **F5: FAIL** — cleanup and artifact hashes pass; migrated-session and all-reviewer PASS receipts do not.

## Read-only verification performed

- Candidate verifier: PASS, 20 inventory entries.
- Lifecycle inventory verifier: PASS, 11 checks, zero mutations.
- Cleanup seal verifier: PASS, 59 evidence entries and 172 archive entries.
- Independent live cleanup verifier: PASS, 79 checks.

No files were modified.

## Remediation choices

1. **Recommended — strict exact-candidate rerun:** resolve the migration clause, pin one candidate/wheel, run one fresh uninterrupted lifecycle, capture the customer surface, clean/reseal, then execute all review lanes.
2. **Not recommended — governance reclassification:** amend the contract to accept cross-candidate incident-recovery lineage and provider receipt as customer observation. This is cheaper but weakens the exact-candidate and user-visible-completion invariants that Task26 is meant to enforce.