{"task_id":"st_019ffbad","status":"completed","residency_state":"persisted_only","parent_session_id":"019fe727-6018-700d-9bb7-2ba4611da8e8","root_session_id":"019fe727-6018-700d-9bb7-2ba4611da8e8","depth":1,"execution_mode":"in-process","model":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-terra","notify_on_terminal":true,"created_at":"2026-08-13T15:11:03.438Z","updated_at":"2026-08-15T03:46:45.113Z","notification":{"run_epoch":2,"notified_epoch":2},"name":"task23-message146-final-live-execution-v1","task_summary":"Execute verified message 146 live path","category":"unspecified-high","requested_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-terra","display":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-terra","source":"category","variant":"max","reasoning_effort":"xhigh"},"fallback_models":[{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","source":"category","variant":"max","reasoning_effort":"xhigh"}],"resolved_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-terra","display":"GPT-5.6 Terra","source":"category","variant":"max","reasoning_effort":"xhigh"},"spawn_spec":{"version":1,"cwd":"/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach","prompt":"Sole final Task23 live executor. User confirms clicking Owner DM message146 `Coach 스키마 복구 1회 승인`. Read plan/ledger and st_019ffb5c SAFE_TO_CLICK_146 evidence first. Authenticate exact Telegram callback from Owner route/card/journal/current candidate; do not trust statement alone. Require journal still published, same event/revision, terminal parent, prospective child350b93eb6dae05af, fixed schema digest28a712..., generic consume CAS and current-package launcher pins. Execute the already offline-verified path exactly once: callback authority -> atomic consume+append child -> repaired Codex Responses payload (strict text.format; no max_output_tokens) -> semantic validation -> lineage-aware draft persistence -> exactly one canonical draft event -> exactly one Owner review card. Bounded contract only; no new child/retry/authorization. On provider/schema/semantic failure retain exact redacted diagnostics and stop terminally. On success controlled restart and replay verification: same child/draft/card, provider duplicate0, card duplicate0, customer nutrition delivery0, gateway active. Do not click approve/send and do not start Task24. Run focused callback/consume/generation/restart tests and direct verifier once. Store permission-sealed redacted evidence. No plan/ledger/todo/commit/push/release. Return DoneClaim with callback update, child history, provider audit, draft/event/card IDs, restart PID, and delivery counts.\n\n<Category_Context>\nYou are working on tasks that don't fit specific categories but require substantial effort.\n\n<Selection_Gate>\nBEFORE selecting this category, VERIFY ALL conditions:\n1. Task does NOT fit: quick (trivial), visual-engineering (UI), ultrabrain (deep logic), artistry (creative), writing (docs)\n2. Task requires substantial effort across multiple systems/modules\n3. Changes have broad impact or require careful coordination\n4. NOT just \"complex\" - must be genuinely unclassifiable AND high-effort\n\nIf task fits ANY other category, DO NOT select unspecified-high.\nIf task is unclassifiable but moderate-effort, use unspecified-low instead.\n</Selection_Gate>\n</Category_Context>"},"final_response":"I read this as a read-only terminal-failure audit - the retained evidence identifies the schema boundary failure and confirms this authorization cannot be reused.\n\n**Retained sanitized diagnostic** (one attempt, child `c01ec26a0a5f6a1e`):\n```json\n{\n  \"http_status\": 400,\n  \"provider_error_type\": \"invalid_request_error\",\n  \"provider_error_code\": \"invalid_json_schema\",\n  \"provider_error_param\": \"text.format.schema\",\n  \"message_category\": \"bad_request\",\n  \"request_id\": null,\n  \"request_id_sha256\": null,\n  \"failure_code\": \"provider_bad_request\",\n  \"retryable\": false\n}\n```\nThe evidence intentionally retains no raw provider error prose or provider response.\n\nThe request was a strict Responses request:\n- Fields: `input`, `instructions`, `model`, `store`, `stream`, `text`, `timeout`\n- `text.format`: `type=json_schema`, `name=nutrition_coach_response_v2`, `strict=true`\n- Requested output budget: `256`; not sent as `max_output_tokens` for this endpoint.\n- Schema candidate SHA-256: `28a712ef32ce69008c460beeee6cc11da042bda05c0f343b849ae65cfe03407b`\n\nThe transport copies `coach_v2_response_schema()` directly into `text.format.schema`; the reconstructed source schema hashes to that exact pin.\n\n**Schema audit**\n\nThe structural requirements are satisfied: object root, all 11 root fields required, `additionalProperties:false` on both objects, array `items`, and no top-level union.\n\nThe public Structured Outputs guide supports the retained structural rules plus `pattern`, `minimum`, and `minItems`. Its documented supported-property profile does not include `minLength`, `maxLength`, or `uniqueItems`; the guide specifically calls out string-length constraints as unavailable on fine-tuned variants. The ChatGPT Codex Responses endpoint has no separate public schema-subset specification. Because raw provider prose was redacted, the evidence proves rejection of `text.format.schema`, but cannot attribute it to one individual keyword.\n\nThe portable-profile violations/candidates are these 12 occurrences:\n\n- `minLength` / `maxLength`\n  - `customer_key`\n  - `evidence_ids.items`\n  - `interpretation`\n  - `next_checkin_focus_ids.items`\n  - `customer_draft`\n- `uniqueItems`\n  - `evidence_ids`\n  - `next_checkin_focus_ids`\n\nI derived a compatibility transform that removes only those 12 constraints, preserving enums, the digest pattern, positive nutrition values, and non-empty arrays. Its SHA-256 is:\n\n```text\n7fda8dd3e2c36a58a12fcc3b99464825d12cdfa65addff48e9c63c4514f73ab2\n```\n\nOffline validation passed:\n- JSON Schema Draft 2020-12: valid\n- Documented strict-profile validator: zero errors\n- 15 object properties, depth 3, 284 schema-string characters, 9 enum values\n\nThis is an offline compatibility result only; no provider call was made.\n\n**Why the prior audit passed**\n\nThe prior “provider strict subset” test was self-referential: its local allowlist explicitly included `minLength`, `maxLength`, and `uniqueItems`. It made no provider request. The release harness used a mock transport that recorded the schema hash but returned success without provider-side schema validation. Therefore both checks could pass while the actual Codex Responses validator rejected the schema.\n\n**Terminal state**\n\n- Current authorization journal SHA-256: `6fb4f947e7b41b4f187e724b4957dd00148f9ebf45107e966aa19c70b0569d27`\n- State: `consumed`\n- Child history: `generation_pending -> generating -> generation_failed`\n- Terminal record: `a7288d95c6ac04e7e7fd4b836e4a9a56cdef2c3bf7772f498bd74c2170b67819`\n- One provider failure; zero successes; no draft, canonical draft event, or customer delivery.\n\nNo retry, callback replay/click on message `147`, approval, send, or Task24 action is authorized.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":406310,"turns":7,"tool_calls":37,"output_tokens":13678,"total_tokens":854053,"generation_ms":258535,"tokens_per_second":53,"cost_usd":0.5666268,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9565994057709484,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.8450322772571769}}