I read this as an independent adversarial verification of Todo11 r2 - I will inspect the implementation and evidence, execute the required negative and real-surface checks, then record only the allowed verification artifact if every gate passes.


I found that Todo11’s existing r2 proof is a self-authored structural AST check rather than the required behavioral inherited-call control, so I am replacing that claim with direct disposable execution checks before considering its verdict.


The disposable happy path and all requested suites are green, but direct fake-transport inspection found two behavioral blockers: a rejected Topic59 edit is recorded as an unknown connection loss, and a wrong-chat callback executes an edit against that wrong chat. I am validating their durable consequences before writing the independent verdict.


I read this as recording the independent result - the required evidence has three reproduced blockers, so I will write a `NEEDS_FIX` verification receipt and cleanup receipt only; no product or test code will be changed.


I read this as independent Todo11 r2 verification - it is **NOT CONFIRMED**.

Blockers reproduced:
- Known Topic59 edit rejection is durably recorded as `unknown/connection_lost`, not known `failed/rejected`.
- Wrong-chat callback performs an unauthorized `editMessageText`.
- Actual owner-DM card exposes raw check-in, nutrition, health, and free-text fields.
- Shipped inheritance test uses AST inspection rather than behavioral proof.

Passed: CLI/preflight, clone revert RED, focused 26, relevant 87, production 164, profile 1035, type/LSP/lint/compile gates, manifest recomputation.

Evidence written:
- `.omo/evidence/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations/task-11-independent-verification-r2.json`
- `.omo/evidence/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations/task-11-independent-verification-r2-cleanup.json`