I read this as a code-quality review of the sealed v1.2.0 candidate - I will inspect its delta and evidence, run targeted validation, and report a PASS/FAIL without edits.


PASS

- Sealed source verified: all seven v1.2.0 files match the candidate provenance hashes for `102cbbb...d4635`.
- New modules meet the <=250 LOC limit: acknowledgement model 217, store 188, credential recovery 207.
- Persistence is atomic and process-safe: `flock`, temp-file `fsync`, `os.replace`, and directory `fsync` in `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_operator_ack.py:60-145`.
- Idempotent acknowledgement and epoch-based recovery are implemented and covered in `tests/gateway/test_telegram_operator_notification_recovery.py:78-422`.
- Systemd credential resolution correctly supports `CREDENTIALS_DIRECTORY` and validates receipt path, ownership, mode, digest, candidate, and owner binding in `...operator_recovery.py:31-174`.
- Feature-off remains gated by absent/disabled capability configuration; capability activation requires config, sealed receipt, candidate digest, and exact owner route.

Command evidence:
- `ruff check` scoped candidate files: **passed**.
- `PYTHONPATH=$PWD/dualcoach/profile ty check` new modules: **passed**.
- Same `ty check` runtime/callback/publication modules: **passed**.
- `PYTHONPATH=$PWD/dualcoach/profile pytest -q test_telegram_operator_notification_recovery.py test_telegram_nutrition_onboarding_recovery.py test_telegram_publication_recovery.py`: **20 passed**.
- `git diff --check`: clean.

Note: a whole-file `ty` run on `telegram.py` reports existing unrelated diagnostics outside this delta; no candidate-added line was implicated.


I read this as a final regression review of the resealed candidate - I will verify the new candidate and wheel binding, inspect the `/status` dedupe change and test, then return a concise PASS/FAIL.


FAIL

- `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication_transport.py:20-39,300-311` treats payloads with different or absent `operator_recovery_request` as equivalent, then returns before `mark_prepared` or Telegram delivery.
- `/status` intentionally adds a request-specific value at `telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication.py:101-106`. The new helper therefore suppresses the fresh card required for a `/status` request whenever the current owner card has the same attention identity and epoch - including the first request after a normal owner card.
- The new test only proves restart suppression (`tests/gateway/test_telegram_operator_notification_recovery.py:371-423`); it does not assert that a distinct `/status` request sends a fresh card.

Evidence: candidate provenance matches `9208d72c...`, and build A/B wheels both hash to `71005e...`; targeted test suite passed (8), ruff passed, and ty passed.


I read this as a final verification of the corrected candidate - I will validate the reseal, directional guard, and stated focused checks before returning only PASS or FAIL.


PASS