{"type":"transition_applied","payload":{"type":"transition_applied","status":"running","residency_state":"resident"}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I read this as a security and authority-integrity audit - I’ll trace the owner-risk-acceptance diff through authorization, state transitions, rendering, and side effects, then return a PASS/FAIL verdict with exact evidence."}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":true}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":true}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I’ve isolated the v1.3 owner-risk feature surface. I’m now tracing the card token from issuance through callback handling and profile mutation, including owner identity refresh, candidate binding, single-use behavior, and customer-visible publication."}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"The authority routing itself is fail-closed for current owner, route, generation, message, and consumed update. Two deeper integrity gaps remain: callback authorization is not bound to the rendered action set, and the claimed append-only acceptance evidence is overwriteable/non-transactional. I’m verifying those paths against the real domain service before issuing the verdict."}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"lsp_diagnostics","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"lsp_diagnostics","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":true}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I read this as a security audit verdict - I traced issuance, callback authority, replay handling, state mutation, and publication side effects.\n\n# FAIL\n\n## 1. High: stale/unrendered cards can invoke owner-risk acceptance\n\n- The rendered `owner_risk` action is conditional: `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication.py:308-326`.\n- Publication equivalence ignores the rendered action set and returns early based only on payload equality: `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication_transport.py:20-39,302-314`.\n- Callback validation checks generation, message, route, and payload epoch, but never proves `owner_risk` was actually present in the committed card’s rendered actions: `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_callback.py:167-193,410-433`.\n\nTherefore, after enabling the capability against an existing safety-hold card with the same operator epoch, restart recovery can retain the old card without the button. A manually constructed `owner_risk` callback for that card is nevertheless accepted. This violates the specified stale-card and capability-at-issuance boundaries.\n\n## 2. High: acceptance evidence is not append-only or transactionally tied to the transition\n\n- Every acceptance writes the same file: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:92-96`.\n- The underlying writer replaces existing files: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_fs.py:144-161`.\n- The receipt is written before the workflow transition and consumed-update commit: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:93-105`.\n- Normal state transitions permit `owner_review -> safety_hold`: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding.py:310-328,397-405`, allowing repeated acceptance to overwrite prior evidence.\n- The receipt also omits the promised bootstrap/session identifier: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:72-91`.\n\nI reproduced two legitimate hold/accept cycles: the second acceptance replaced the first receipt and its Telegram update ID. A crash between lines 96 and 102 can likewise leave an acceptance receipt without the corresponding state transition, then permit replacement on retry. This contradicts the append-only and immutable-audit requirements.\n\n## Additional integrity gap\n\nThe safety-card identity binds reconciliation but not baseline digest (`telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication.py:85-96`), while acceptance copies stored digests without proving they still match the card (`nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:59-91`). The declared “changed baseline/reconciliation” stop condition is therefore not fully enforced at callback time.\n\nExact-owner routing, duplicate update rejection, candidate equality, and `clinical_approval: false` are present. I found no direct customer publication, activation, coaching, or provider call from this action.\n\nVerification: focused owner-risk tests passed (`16 passed`), but they do not cover rendered-action binding, repeated acceptance, or crash atomicity. No files were modified."}}
{"type":"transition_applied","payload":{"type":"transition_applied","status":"completed","residency_state":"resident"}}
{"type":"revived","payload":{"run_epoch":1}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I read this as a focused re-audit of the remediations - I’ll verify the new card identity, stale-card republish behavior, atomic append-only transition, full binding recomputation, and regression tests, then return an updated PASS/FAIL with exact lines."}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"The publication and append-only fixes are present and address the original replay/overwrite paths. One claimed boundary still needs validation: the domain reconstructs its binding from stored digest fields, so I’m checking whether altered baseline/reconciliation content with unchanged embedded digests is actually rejected rather than merely compared by label."}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"lsp_diagnostics","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"lsp_diagnostics","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I read this as a post-fix security verdict - I verified the remediations and tested content-drift rejection.\n\n# FAIL\n\nThe original stale-card and overwrite findings are fixed, but changed reconciliation/baseline content is still not fully rejected.\n\n## Remaining blocker: domain trusts embedded digest fields without validating underlying content\n\n- Acceptance extracts `reconciliation[\"digest\"]` without calling the existing canonical reconciliation validator: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:82-100`.\n- It reads `document[\"baseline_digest\"]` without recomputing the digest of `baseline-candidate.json`: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:95-105`.\n- Consequently, the identity comparison validates digest labels, not the current documents’ contents: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:102-107`.\n\nI altered persisted reconciliation content while retaining its old embedded digest and card binding. `record_owner_risk_acceptance` accepted it and transitioned to `owner_review`. This violates the declared stop condition for changed baseline/reconciliation.\n\n## Confirmed fixed\n\n- Card payload now binds candidate, bootstrap session, customer, baseline, and reconciliation: `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication.py:103-125`.\n- Acknowledged legacy cards no longer suppress publication when the new identity is present: `telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication.py:301-313`.\n- Changed bound payload forces a new generation: `telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication_transport.py:20-39,42-58,302-320`.\n- Callback requires the bound identity and reconstructs the current bootstrap/customer binding: `telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_callback.py:410-455`.\n- Receipts are appended inside the same atomic workflow update as state and consumed-update mutation: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:108-144`; `nutrition_onboarding_session.py:67-77`.\n- Receipts explicitly record `clinical_approval: false` and `bootstrap_session_id`: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:108-128`.\n\nVerification: focused suite passed, `17 passed`. No files were modified."}}
{"type":"transition_applied","payload":{"type":"transition_applied","status":"completed","residency_state":"resident"}}
{"type":"revived","payload":{"run_epoch":2}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I read this as the final security re-audit - I’ll verify canonical baseline/reconciliation validation, tamper tests, and whether acceptance receipts survive finalization into readiness evidence, then return PASS/FAIL with exact lines."}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"The acceptance-time content checks now correctly reject relabeled baseline and reconciliation tampering, and receipt history is carried into `ready.json`. The remaining question is post-acceptance drift: finalization consumes the baseline candidate again, so I’m verifying it recomputes that candidate’s digest before using the risk receipt as the clinical-review substitute."}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"lsp_diagnostics","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"lsp_diagnostics","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I read this as the final post-fix audit - I verified acceptance integrity and finalization/readiness preservation.\n\n# FAIL\n\nAcceptance-time tampering is fixed, but a post-acceptance/pre-finalization integrity gap remains.\n\n## Blocker: baseline can drift after acceptance and still finalize under the old receipt\n\n- Acceptance correctly recomputes baseline content and validates reconciliation: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:207-225`.\n- After acceptance, owner approval does not repeat that content validation.\n- Finalization rereads `baseline-candidate.json`, but only model-validates its payload; it does not verify `candidate[\"digest\"] == canonical_digest(candidate[\"baseline\"])`: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:87-96`.\n- The risk history is then validated against that unverified digest label and can replace clinical review: `nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:133-151`.\n- Final artifacts and plans are generated from the potentially changed payload while retaining the old source digest and acceptance receipt: `nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:157-209`.\n- Readiness subsequently validates the receipt against the copied source-digest label, not the original candidate payload: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_readiness_validators.py:145-163`.\n\nTherefore, after valid risk acceptance, altering the baseline payload while retaining its old `digest` allows finalization and readiness generation under an acceptance receipt for different content. Finalization must recompute the candidate baseline digest immediately before validating risk history and creating artifacts.\n\n## Confirmed fixed\n\n- Baseline and workflow digest equality are checked at acceptance: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:207-218`.\n- Reconciliation structure and canonical digest are validated with `load_reconciliation`, including the baseline reconciliation pin: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:219-225`.\n- Receipt structure, nonclinical labeling, identity, and digest are revalidated during finalization: `nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:73-143`.\n- Full receipt history is passed into finalization and retained in `ready.json`: `nutrition_onboarding_finalize_service.py:35-58`; `nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:305-315`.\n- The latest receipt is embedded in the readiness baseline and independently audited: `nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:201-209`; `nutrition_readiness_validators.py:145-163`.\n\nVerification: relevant suites passed, `37 passed`. No files were modified."}}
{"type":"transition_applied","payload":{"type":"transition_applied","status":"completed","residency_state":"resident"}}
{"type":"revived","payload":{"run_epoch":3}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I read this as the release-gate recheck - I’ll verify the finalization-time digest fence, post-acceptance tamper regression, pregnancy readiness alignment, and receipt preservation, then issue the final PASS/FAIL."}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"read","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"lsp_diagnostics","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"lsp_diagnostics","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"tool_execution","payload":{"tool":"bash","is_error":false}}
{"type":"assistant_message","payload":{"text":"I read this as the final release-gate verdict - all previously identified integrity gaps are now closed.\n\n# PASS\n\nEvidence:\n\n- Finalization recomputes and verifies the canonical baseline payload digest before risk-history validation or artifact generation: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:87-105`.\n- Risk receipts are validated against the verified baseline and reconciliation binding before substituting for clinical review: `nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:142-160`.\n- Post-acceptance baseline tampering is rejected, then restoration successfully finalizes: `dualcoach/profile/tests/test_nutrition_onboarding.py:683-724`.\n- Acceptance-time baseline and reconciliation content validation remains enforced: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:207-238`.\n- Pregnancy and other medical-input readiness checks accept only clinical clearance or a validated owner-risk receipt; invalid receipts still fail readiness: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_readiness_validators.py:143-175`.\n- Acceptance history survives finalization in `ready.json`, while the validated latest receipt is embedded in the readiness baseline: `nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:201-209,305-315`.\n- Candidate, session, customer, baseline, reconciliation, current publication, exact owner route, and nonclinical labeling remain bound across publication and callback handling: `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication.py:128-149,357-370`; `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_callback.py:410-455`.\n\nVerification: focused security/domain suites passed, `37 passed`; diagnostics were clean. No files were modified."}}
{"type":"transition_applied","payload":{"type":"transition_applied","status":"completed","residency_state":"resident"}}
{"type":"transition_applied","payload":{"type":"transition_applied","status":"completed","residency_state":"evicted"}}
{"type":"evicted","payload":{"cause":"evict"}}