I read this as implementation of Todo 1 only - I’ll reconstruct the candidate-bound baseline in the target worktree, verify its sealed hashes/builds/tests and tamper behavior, write the required evidence and cleanup receipt, then return only the DoneClaim.


I’ve confirmed the governing artifacts and the immutable live-candidate receipt. I’m now characterizing the clean target versus the qualified dirty source and locating the existing two-build verifier before any reconstruction.


status: BLOCKED

reason: Required regression-test SHA-256 cannot be reproduced: the mandated value has 63 hexadecimal characters and is not a valid SHA-256 digest.

status: PASS

temporary_read-only inspection directories: removed

risks: Proceeding would require weakening or correcting the supplied seal, which is explicitly prohibited.

risks: No reconstruction, builds, focused suite, evidence receipt, or cleanup receipt was written after the mandatory hash mismatch was identified.


I read this as resuming Todo 1 under the sealed hash erratum - I’ll preserve historical bytes, reconstruct the qualified source with the corrected 64-character test digest, then complete the two-build, focused-suite, tamper, adversarial, evidence, and cleanup gates.


The clean-HEAD characterization produced the expected four nonmatches. Its build backend touched a tracked generated profile tree, so I’m restoring those bytes through a patch operation before reconstructing the allowlisted candidate source; no qualified or live bytes are being changed.


The allowlisted reconstruction is materialized and both corrected source hashes match. I’m entering verification now: two independently cleaned output builds at the qualification epoch, followed by the exact 87-test domain suite and tamper/manual QA.


The first focused run exposed the qualification’s documented source/package-path split: the sealed profile wheel is the active v1.3.2 package, while the qualified 87-test source lane uses the detached source profile. I’m restoring those four source-lane files from the qualified tree, retaining the exact wheel builds as product evidence, then rerunning the prescribed suite once against the correct source-bound interpreter.


The source inventory is now complete and the exact qualification suite passes 87/87. I’m running the final offline verifier on the reconstructed target and a one-byte tampered disposable copy, then I’ll seal evidence, audit the allowlist, and remove every temporary build/tamper resource.


status: DONE

focused_suite: 87 passed in 1.77s

risks: Historical plan and qualification retain the malformed 63-character regression hash; the sealed erratum and baseline evidence carry this provenance debt explicitly.

risks: The inherited qualification separates the v1.3.2 sealed profile-wheel lane from the detached source-test lane; both identities are recorded.

risks: Pre-existing type diagnostics and oversized legacy modules remain unchanged because Todo 1 requires exact qualified bytes.


I read this as repairing Todo 1’s product proof - I’ll separate the retained v1.3.3 source-test lineage from an explicit immutable v1.3.2 profile-product snapshot, independently reproduce both sealed wheels twice, add a verifier that rejects either source substitution, rerun 87 tests, and supersede the misleading receipt without touching historical or live state.


The false-positive receipt confirms the incompatibility and is being retained. I found a viable independent authority: the read-only active v1.3.2 runtime contains all 55 sealed profile wheel members; I’m materializing those exact bytes plus the unchanged profile build manifest as a separately inventoried evidence-only product input, never as target source-test bytes.


The split is now mechanically explicit: the retained target profile directly and reproducibly yields `09c5…` and is marked source-test-only; the separate 56-file sealed-profile authority independently yielded `a099…`. I’m now running the new verifier twice against those declared inputs, with no temporary source substitution.


Both declared product derivations and all three negative authority cases are complete. I’m performing the final read-only seal audit now: receipt consistency, exact inventories, protected-state hashes, absence of build/tamper resources, and unchanged 48-path target source delta.


derivation: split-source

lineage: source-test only

focused_suite: 87 passed in 2.47s

risks: The retained target profile source directly builds 09c5bbde..., not the sealed profile product; this mismatch is explicit and cannot qualify the product.

risks: The sealed product identity is intentionally split: v1.3.3 Hermes cf4ccf... plus unchanged v1.3.2 profile a099b3....

risks: The immutable 63-character historical regression hash remains provenance debt under the sealed erratum.

risks: Historical false-positive adversarial receipts remain retained and are superseded, not deleted.


I read this as a trust-boundary repair for Todo 1 - I’ll first reproduce the empty-manifest and undeclared packaged-source failures, then replace the handpicked Hermes authority with a pinned, complete build-backend-derived inventory and prove every required pre-build rejection before rebuilding twice.


I’ve confirmed the r2 report against the current verifier design. I’m now executing the required RED characterization with the old verifier: first an empty Hermes authority that still qualifies, then a disposable complete source clone with `agent/__init__.py` tampered to show detection occurs only after both wheels build.


RED is sealed, and the complete backend-derived Hermes authority contains 998 inputs exactly matching the qualified wheel’s source mapping. I’m replacing the verifier with a pinned preflight that hard-codes this manifest digest/count, profile authority, erratum binding, base HEAD, branch, tracked delta, and tracked/untracked status identity before any build can start.


The hardened verifier is syntactically complete and pins the 998-file authority at digest `cb4bed…`. Before rebuilding, I’m exercising every requested pre-build trust-anchor negative against it; each case uses a disposable patched override and must leave its output directory absent.


All requested pre-build negatives now fail at their pinned trust boundary with no output directory created, including `agent/__init__.py`. I’m entering GREEN: two fresh builds through the hardened 998-input verifier, followed by the exact 87-test source lane and direct-profile mismatch confirmation retained as `09c5…`.


Both isolated GREEN derivations reproduced `cf4ccf…` and `a099b3…`, and the exact suite passed `87/87`. I’m sealing superseding r3 receipts while retaining the prior baseline, original adversarial false-positive receipt, cleanup receipt, and r3 RED capture unchanged.


The r3 baseline is sealed at `baf40f…`; all prior false-positive artifacts remain byte-for-byte available, including the superseded `c416f…` baseline. I’m performing the final independent consistency pass over every receipt reference, all 998+56 input hashes, protected hashes, script syntax, repository identity, and cleanup state.


I read this as Todo 1 repair completion - report the verified, superseding DoneClaim.

## DoneClaim

- **Status:** PASS
- **Todo:** Materialize a clean candidate-bound source baseline
- **Baseline:** `task-1-baseline.json`
- **Baseline SHA-256:** `baf40fdf735de688cfb0fd6d2d8d7f896cf32caa570ceaf192f6446f18e20c7d`
- **Hermes authority:** 998 pinned inputs, manifest `cb4bed77596a9e3a8c351dd19783f0c4a17bb0a6f2ecdff5252c4e31649aaaff`
- **Verifier:** `691aca86761368bcda9f2afe2b8df63b69f077c63f603520ff70ead967b4b87c`
- **Products reproduced twice:**
  - Hermes: `cf4ccf4872ecd064c9878a11f5e2389262a7e05d561a3df6c004efff3b393f92`
  - Profile: `a099b3e1da62d8291fb3442de64e9de9b12e6f67aa63fa8fdf62abccbcabfa29`
- **Tests:** `87 passed in 2.64s`
- **Negative QA:** all nine requested cases rejected pre-build with expected distinct codes and `build_started=false`
- **Erratum:** malformed 63-character provenance retained; corrected digest pinned
- **History:** prior false-positive receipts and superseded `c416f…` baseline retained
- **Cleanup:** PASS; temporary outputs removed
- **Protected state:** source/product delta, plan, ledger, Boulder, live runtime/config/service unchanged
- **Git/network:** no commit, push, deployment, service, provider, customer, or network action performed


I read this as an evidence-only Todo 1 correction under decision `A_VALID` - inspect the decision and retained audit, characterize the invalid diagnostic gate, then supersede receipts/verifier, run every canonical and adversarial gate, and stop on failure.


The decision resolves the audit correctly: `d302…` is a valid diagnostic observation, not a product failure. The existing r3 verifier already excludes direct target-profile builds, but r3 baseline/product receipts incorrectly pin `09c5…`; I’m preserving them and sealing a RED characterization before creating r4 evidence with no diagnostic digest gate.


The r4 verifier now pins decision `A_VALID`, both exact source identities, all prior hardened authorities, and proves `dualcoach/profile` is absent from Hermes product inputs without building it or naming a diagnostic digest. I’m running the complete 14-fixture pre-build matrix against this exact verifier.


All 14 invalid-input fixtures failed before output creation with the expected codes. I’m now running only canonical PASS gates: exact source hashes, two sequential fresh 998/56 derivations, the exact 87-test command, and a read-only active-candidate binding check; the diagnostic target profile build will not run.


Canonical gates are green: both fresh products reproduced twice, both exact source hashes match, the focused suite is `87 passed`, active live remains read-only candidate `6c9c…`, and the r4 verifier contains no `09c5…`/`d302…` comparison. I’m sealing new append-only r4 receipts, then cleaning all disposable resources before the final baseline seal.


The append-only r4 baseline is sealed. I’m performing the final cross-reference and immutability audit now: exact authoritative wording, receipt hashes, 1,054 authorized input hashes, old receipt preservation, protected repository identity, script syntax, and zero disposable residue.


I read this as Todo 1 evidence-only completion - report the corrected append-only r4 DoneClaim.

## DoneClaim

**Status:** PASS under architecture decision `A_VALID`

### Superseding evidence

- Baseline: `task-1-baseline-r4.json`
  `1f46bf05545e5798bb564d10b8e61f80cd976e959edc476fedaec4c41af15507`
- Product derivation: `task-1-product-derivation-r4.json`
  `6900bc7caf2de77b89026471fedb29c9b9e6e4a3f77b4c836ebafdbad6886791`
- Verifier: `verify-task-1-product-r4.sh`
  `d6edcdb0faad7102118bd3a1cea6e090711e38dbd0b8724b905c450b1eb16023`
- Invalid-input fixtures: `task-1-invalid-input-fixtures-r4.json`
  `c26e26f7dd5ae94c5ec2f79f785f53c2c6cded367d0cf56e956a9598b7aa8509`
- RED characterization: `task-1-product-boundary-r4-red-characterization.json`
  `1a91dad2046e5db6efcb04df0fd136aa616df9ac1fe1524a29a2fb5ab18651f4`
- Cleanup: `task-1-cleanup-r4.json`
  `7fae4bcd7d061a7e6091dd6b8125dd33b6b6c5685fbc765d935dfb1c9aecb91f`

### Verification

- Two fresh canonical derivations reproduced:
  - Hermes 998-input authority: `cf4ccf4872ecd064c9878a11f5e2389262a7e05d561a3df6c004efff3b393f92`
  - Sealed 56-file profile: `a099b3e1da62d8291fb3442de64e9de9b12e6f67aa63fa8fdf62abccbcabfa29`
- Exact source hashes passed.
- Exact focused suite: `87 passed in 2.17s`.
- All 14 invalid-input fixtures failed before build.
- Active live candidate remained read-only: `6c9c4394a9406f7464921be1b86a88429e70c6411fd13b7508ace67e14a6a92f`.
- Direct target-profile diagnostic build was not run or used as a PASS gate.
- Prior `09c5…` and `d302…` observations remain diagnostic history only.
- Prior receipts remain byte-identical.
- No product/dirty source, live state, plan, Boulder, ledger, service, network, or Git operation occurred.