I read this as implementing Todo11 only in the designated worktree - I’ll inspect its contracts and production Telegram flow, establish a failing real-surface E2E, then implement and verify the disposable runner and evidence.


The production seams are present, but the referenced v1.1 fake Telegram files are absent from this reconstructed worktree; I’m tracing their qualified source location and the exact Todo2-9 APIs before adding the failing entrypoint test.


I’ve identified the smallest honest design: a disposable typed harness will reuse the qualified fake engine directly in-process, attach it behind real `TelegramAdapter` send/edit methods, and feed real update objects into production callback/text handlers while the real tick owns reminder/card/draft creation. I’m starting with the required failing CLI/E2E contract.


message: WebSocket error

stop_reason: error


The red contract fails for the intended missing-entrypoint reason. I’m now implementing the isolated fake transport and profile harness; all provider effects remain in-memory, while state transitions stay in production stores and handlers.


The real-surface scenario is now green end to end, including durable approved delivery. I’m tightening the runner’s size/type boundaries and expanding the CLI/failure verification before sealing evidence.


The exact PEP-723 `uv run` surface now passes for help and the weekly scenario with no project/network leakage. I’m running the focused production gates, full profile suite, and final artifact audits now.


I read this as reporting Todo11 execution - I’ll provide a truthful DoneClaim with verification and the remaining blocker.

**DoneClaim: VALIDATION_BLOCKED**

Implemented the disposable no-network Telegram E2E and evidence. Verified:

- Disposable scenario: `DISPOSABLE_WEEKLY_OPERATIONS_PASS`
- Focused Todo11/dispatcher/Topic59/owner tests: 9 passed
- Production composition: 164 passed
- Full profile suite: 1035 passed
- Ruff, compileall, no-excuse: passed
- CLI help and credential-disabled failure: passed
- Privacy leaks: 0
- Approved customer sends: exactly 1
- Preapproval weekly customer sends: 0
- Cleanup and sanitized transcript evidence written

Blocker: strict basedpyright reports 94 diagnostics, mainly production-private handler access and untyped imported fixture seams. I did not suppress them or falsely claim completion.

Evidence: `.omo/evidence/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations/task-11-*.json`

Architectural review: helpers have single responsibilities, inputs remain isolated, no defensive post-verification or logging changes, tests are revert-sensitive, and all files are ≤250 pure LOC. The 249-line runner is in the warning band and must be split before further additions.


I read this as completing Todo11 r2 by replacing dynamic test-fixture shortcuts with typed owned harnesses - I’ll split the CLI first, then build a typed `TelegramAdapter` facade and concrete disposable fixtures, prove inherited calls with a revert-sensitive test, and rerun every requested gate.


The r1 type failures come from two root causes, not isolated annotations: the runner owns CLI and scenario concerns together, and it imports private pytest fixtures. I’m applying the mandated split first, then replacing those fixture imports as a unit.


The runner no longer imports pytest or private test helpers; it now owns concrete real-store authority, tick, Topic-59, and owner fixtures, while typed facades are the only code allowed to touch inherited protected handlers. I’m exercising that new path before tightening static diagnostics.


I read this as completing Todo11 r2 - implementation, verification, and evidence are finished.

**DoneClaim: VALIDATED**

- Disposable production-handler E2E passes with network and credentials disabled.
- Privacy leaks, unauthorized provider calls, and preapproval sends: `0`.
- Approved customer sends: exactly `1`; Topic-59 edit preserves message ID.
- Basedpyright: `0 errors, 0 warnings`; ty, LSP, Ruff, no-excuse, compileall: clean.
- Tests: focused `26 passed`, production composition `164 passed`, full profile `1035 passed`.
- Sanitized r2 evidence and manifest are under `.omo/evidence/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations/`.


I read this as implementing Todo11 r3 at the production boundaries - I’ll inspect the edit classifier, callback route gates, weekly owner renderer, and current r2 artifacts/tests, then make the smallest RED→GREEN changes and run the full gate set.


The first inspection confirms all four blockers: Topic59 collapses edit rejection into unknown, the callback acknowledges before route validation, the generic owner renderer exposes daily review data, and the proof is AST-only. I’m adding behavioral RED coverage against those current surfaces before changing production code.


I read this as completing Todo11 r3 - all four verifier blockers now have behavioral RED→GREEN proof.

**DoneClaim: VALIDATED**

- Topic59 known edit rejection: durable `failed/rejected`; timeout and ambiguity remain distinct `unknown` outcomes; zero retries.
- Wrong owner user/chat/topic: zero callback answers, provider attempts, or actions.
- Weekly owner cards use the aggregate whitelist; pre-redaction raw capture privacy leaks: `0`.
- AST proof removed; typed behavioral callback/text/tick/send/edit seam tests pass.
- Artifact verifier passes; transcript, receipt, and message-ID tampering fail nonzero.
- Tests: Todo11 `9`, focused `33`, expanded `91`, production `164`, profile `1035`.
- Basedpyright, ty, focused LSP, Ruff, no-excuse, compileall, and LOC gates pass.
- R3 evidence is under `.omo/evidence/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations/`.