I read this as an implementation review - inspect the bound successor, its diff, evidence, and regression coverage without modifying anything.


I read this as an implementation review - FAIL.

- **Blocker: E2E evidence is bound to a different candidate.** The successor binding identifies `e55ac...` (`.omo/evidence/v1.1.1-successor/candidate-binding.json:3`), but the saved E2E binding and receipt assertions identify `147769...` (`.omo/evidence/v1.1.1-successor/disposable-e2e/candidate-binding.json:1`, `receipt-assertions.json:1`). The runner intentionally derives and records its candidate identity (`scripts/run_dualcoach_v111_disposable_e2e.py:818-822,1164,1258`), so this is stale evidence, not candidate-neutral output. The E2E PASS cannot prove preservation constraints for `e55ac...`; retain the predecessor live and regenerate candidate-bound E2E evidence before upgrade.


I read this as a final successor review - verify the corrected candidate identity, candidate-bound evidence, menu behavior, and stated constraints without modifying anything.


I read this as a final successor review - PASS.

No blockers.