message: 403: {"code":"ENTITLEMENT_ERROR","message":"Error 403: the user is not subscribed to required model plan"}

stop_reason: error


error_message: 403: {"code":"ENTITLEMENT_ERROR","message":"Error 403: the user is not subscribed to required model plan"}


I read this as an implementation task - I’ll inspect the target renderer, tests, and evidence path, then make the smallest contained change and verify it end-to-end.


I read this as a renderer-contract task - I’m locating the existing nutrition_daily card paths and the nearest tests, then I’ll pin a baseline and add the red cases.


I’ve found the existing navigation/presentation seam and the likely contract analogue in the onboarding runtime; now I’m reading the exact action grammar so I can mirror only the needed presentation boundary.


I’ve confirmed the current bridge already has the exact navigation choke point; I’m reading that segment around the nutrition_daily summary so the tests can lock the existing baseline before I change it.


I’ve got the exact contract target now; I’m adding a baseline characterization test first so the current render shape is pinned before the red cases.


I’ve pinned the current first-screen behavior; now I’m verifying that baseline before I add the failing contract tests.


I’ve got the baseline; I’m now adding the red contract assertions for unknown navigation, optional-note, and privacy-safe summary rendering.


I’ve added the red expectations; now I’m running the file to capture the current failure shape before I change the renderer.


The red shape is exactly what I expected: the renderer is still emitting `later` and the summary still leaks values. I’m patching just those presentation seams now.


The renderer patch is in; I’m running the targeted diagnostics and the dedicated test file to confirm the contract now matches the new navigation/privacy rules.


The renderer now matches the new contract; I’m updating the baseline assertion to the green shape so the dedicated file is fully passing.


I’ve moved the baseline assertion onto the new contract; now I’m running the dedicated file again before broader verification.


I only have one accidental duplicate in the test file; I’m removing it so the new contract file stays clean.


The duplicate is gone; I’m re-running the dedicated file and then I’ll decide whether any remaining type/lint noise is pre-existing or from my edits.


I’ve got the file green; the remaining verifier is environment plumbing, so I’m checking which lint/type entrypoints exist in this workspace.


I’m wiring the manual QA driver now so it exercises first/later/unknown/edited/resume renders and proves the privacy sentinel is clear.


I want the manual driver to print the actual progress token, not the heading; I’m tightening that before I run it.


The driver tripped because I reused the same flow state twice; I’m splitting the synthetic cards into separate isolated runs so each render is cleanly reproducible.


The driver is showing the right render state; I’m switching the privacy sentinel off of built-in examples so it reflects only customer values, not help text.


The manual driver passes; I’m finishing verification with the workspace’s actual linter/type entrypoints and then I’ll clean the temp script and write the evidence file.


I’m checking the touched product file directly once so I can separate any pre-existing type debt from the renderer change itself.


I’ve got the functional proof; I’m doing one last workspace inventory check so I can report the actual repo state alongside the pre-existing type debt.


I’ve finished the QA run; I’m deleting the temp driver now and verifying it’s gone.


I’m recording the verification artifact now, including the manual PASS payload and the one pre-existing type-check caveat.


I’ve written the evidence; I’m reading it back once and checking the temp driver remains absent before I close this out.


I read this as implementation completion - I updated the nutrition_daily renderer, verified the dedicated test file, and recorded evidence.

DoneClaim:
- Dedicated pytest file passes.
- Ruff passes.
- basedpyright passes on the new test file.
- Manual QA script printed `status:"PASS"` with first/later/unknown/edited/resume cards and `value_echo:false`, then was deleted.
- Evidence: `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-3-card-renderer.json`

Note: `basedpyright` on `gateway/platforms/physique_checkin.py` still reports 99 pre-existing errors outside this change.


I read this as evidence-only strengthening - I’ll rewrite the artifact from already-recorded logs and leave code/tests untouched.


I’m rewriting the evidence artifact with concrete recorded commands, outputs, and exits only.


I’ve amended the artifact; I’m reading it back once to confirm the exact recorded facts landed cleanly.


I read this as evidence-only amendment - I updated the JSON from recorded logs and left code/tests untouched.

DoneClaim:
- Evidence updated at `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-3-card-renderer.json`
- `changed_files`: `gateway/platforms/physique_checkin.py`, `tests/gateway/test_customer_nutrition_stepper_card.py`
- Baseline, RED, GREEN, manual QA, and cleanup commands/outputs are now concrete in the artifact
- `missing_red_evidence: false`


I read this as a fix task - I’ll inspect the current renderer, add the missing regressions in the dedicated test file, then make the smallest bridge/presentation change and re-verify.


I’ve got the bridge hotspots; I’m now locating how the profile service records `unknown_steps` so the progress count and receipt variant can stay presentation-only.


I’ve got the domain hook; I’m reading the storage API just enough to build a summary-state fixture without touching product code yet.


I’m replacing the dedicated test file with the new five regressions plus the summary fixture needed to prove the union-count bug.


I caught one bad fixture call in the new regression file; I’m correcting that before the red run so the failures reflect product behavior, not the test harness.


The regressions are in place; I’m capturing the exact red now before changing the bridge.


I found one test harness bug: the first screen’s clickable control lives in `button_rows`, not `buttons`. I’m fixing the helper so the red reflects real product behavior.


I’ve fixed the harness; I’m re-running the dedicated file so the remaining red is purely the renderer contract.


I’m patching the bridge in one pass: receipt variant, unknown action mapping, history/progress union, and nutrition_daily `l` rejection.


I’m finishing the bridge logic now: `u -> unknown`, union-count progress, and the nutrition-only `이전 답 수정` label.


message: WebSocket error


I’m tightening the receipt-variant test so terminal and edit variants are exercised on fresh summary states instead of a stale binding.


I’m continuing from the current state - I’ll inspect the edited bridge/test files for any broken patch edges, then finish only the missing red/green/manual/cleanup gates.


The bridge and test file are now aligned enough to re-run the dedicated red.


The remaining red is just my sentinel choice colliding with the built-in bodyweight example; I’m swapping that to a real privacy sentinel and re-running.


I’ve fixed the sentinel; I’m re-running the dedicated file to close the red and then I’ll finish the verification/evidence pieces.


The dedicated test file is green; I’m now running lint/type diagnostics on the changed files before I regenerate the manual QA artifact.


I’m removing the test-file type noise by using the public bridge path for the summary fixture and adding the missing prompt type annotation.


I caught one last private access in the summary fixture; I’m switching that to the callback version we already have publicly.


I’ve removed the remaining private hook; I’m re-running diagnostics on the test file before the next validator pass.


I’m cleaning the test-file import set so the final validation is about the bridge, not the harness.


I’ve fixed the imports; I’m re-running the test-file diagnostics and the dedicated file once more.


I found the summary fixture bug: it was mutating the service behind the bridge, so the bridge stayed at bodyweight. I’m switching it to public click navigation end-to-end.


The summary fixture is public now; I’m rerunning the dedicated file and the product-file checks to close the remaining gates.


I’m writing the fresh manual QA driver to exercise u, all-unknown summary, forged l, receipt variants, and the navigation label.


The manual driver needs one session-id fix for the edit/resume branch; I’m correcting that before running it.


I’m running the manual QA driver now; it should print the PASS JSON with the current card surfaces and then I’ll clean it up.


I’ve got the final PASS surfaces; I’m hashing the changed files now so the evidence can carry exact integrity values.


I’m cleaning the temporary manual driver now and proving it’s gone before I write the final evidence artifact.


I’m rewriting the evidence artifact with the concrete RED, GREEN, manual PASS payload, cleanup proof, and the file hashes.


I’ve updated the evidence; I’m reading it back and confirming the temp driver is absent.


DoneClaim: Todo 3 is fixed and re-verified.

- Changed files: `gateway/platforms/physique_checkin.py`, `tests/gateway/test_customer_nutrition_stepper_card.py`
- Evidence updated: `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-3-card-renderer.json`
- Hashes recorded in evidence for both changed files
- Dedicated pytest: PASS
- Ruff: PASS
- basedpyright on test file: PASS
- basedpyright on product file: still pre-existing type debt
- Manual QA: PASS
- Temp driver cleanup: `ABSENT`


I read this as a combined renderer + correction-binding fix - I’ll inspect the current bridge/tests/evidence, then add the smallest regression and implementation changes needed to close both blockers.


I’ve confirmed the current card blocker is closed; I’m now reading the correction launcher path and its existing regression surface so I can add the pre-bind fix without broadening scope.


I’ve found the correction seam: the bridge is persisting the correction binding too early. I’m locating the existing nutrition_coaching regression surface so I can add one focused test and keep the change minimal.


I’ve got the existing customer-launch persistence test; I’m using that pattern to add the correction-specific pre-bind regression in the same domain file.


I’ve got the relevant coordinator pattern; I’m checking the module helper and nearby launcher tests so the correction regression matches the existing style.


I need the exact correction-session semantics next, so I’m reading the profile wizard’s nutrition correction start path before I write the regression.


I have the profile-domain path; I’m checking whether the test file already imports the wizard context type before I add the correction regression.


I’ve got the minimal implementation path: stop persisting the correction binding on open, and add one regression that proves bind-later + restart works.


I’m adding the nutrition_coaching regression next, using a completed morning record to exercise the correction launcher exactly the way production does.


I spotted a likely harness issue in the new regression: I used the wrong service/bridge symbols for this file. I’m checking the existing imports before correcting it.


I’m simplifying the correction regression to the public coordinator path so it only asserts the binding-store behavior we actually care about.


I’ve added the correction regression; I’m running diagnostics and the affected suites now to see whether the fix is complete or if one more edge remains.


The behavioral suite passed; I’m checking the exact regression block now so I can make sure the new test is sane despite the file’s existing type debt.


I need to reconcile the evidence JSON with the actual changed surface, so I’m reading it before I touch anything else.


I’ve got green behavioral coverage; I’m checking the final diff so I can report the exact surface without hand-waving.


I’m grabbing the final file hash for the added regression so the closeout is concrete, not vague.


The evidence hash for the product file drifted after the last change, so I’m syncing the JSON to the current source.


I read this as a combined fix-and-verify task - I patched the correction binding flow, added the regression, synced evidence, and ran the targeted checks.

- `open_nutrition_correction()` now keeps the correction binding in memory until `bind_active_prompt_message("44")`; it no longer persists the empty `step=summary, version=0, message_id=''` draft up front.
- Added `tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py::test_nutrition_correction_defers_binding_persistence_until_message_bound`.
- Evidence updated: `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-3-card-renderer.json`
- Current hashes:
  - `gateway/platforms/physique_checkin.py` → `8310ef746c086db1ba03c5c4a3c2c1f95552690310898ff81cf727334564a4e5`
  - `tests/gateway/test_customer_nutrition_stepper_card.py` → `cd2679283d2cc8a7b3765e6e8ec6d207bb06694cb500c15882c71fa0c9bc9495`
  - `tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py` → `e9364b6a15aee2895cd232b1c9863ba177a29b7d16f2346e55a7a8c0eae1c4f6`

Verification:
- `pytest -q tests/gateway/test_customer_nutrition_stepper_card.py tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py -q` ✅
- `uv run --with ruff ruff check gateway/platforms/physique_checkin.py tests/gateway/test_customer_nutrition_stepper_card.py tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py` ✅
- `uv run basedpyright tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py` still reports pre-existing file-wide type debt unrelated to this change
- manual QA script ran `PASS`
- `/tmp/ulw-task3-card-driver.py` was deleted and verified `ABSENT`