{"task_id":"st_01a00389","status":"completed","residency_state":"evicted","parent_session_id":"01a00387-aaf8-7f2f-89e3-e24c1af24859","root_session_id":"01a00387-aaf8-7f2f-89e3-e24c1af24859","depth":1,"execution_mode":"in-process","model":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","notify_on_terminal":true,"created_at":"2026-08-15T03:48:57.592Z","updated_at":"2026-08-17T06:28:29.519Z","notification":{"run_epoch":2,"notified_epoch":2},"name":"task26-state-auditor","task_summary":"Audit Task26 durable state and identify the next authorized boundary","description":"Audit Task26 durable state","category":"deep","requested_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","source":"category","variant":"medium","reasoning_effort":"medium"},"fallback_models":[{"provider":"clinepass","model_id":"cline-pass/deepseek-v4-pro","display":"clinepass/cline-pass/deepseek-v4-pro","source":"category","variant":"medium","reasoning_effort":"medium"},{"provider":"clinepass","model_id":"cline-pass/glm-5.2","display":"clinepass/cline-pass/glm-5.2","source":"category","variant":"medium","reasoning_effort":"medium"}],"resolved_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"GPT-5.6 Sol","source":"category","variant":"medium","reasoning_effort":"medium"},"spawn_spec":{"version":1,"cwd":"/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach","prompt":"Goal: independently reconstruct the exact current Task26 state and identify the one next authorized action. Scope is read-only across /home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/{plans,start-work,evidence/task26,boulder.json}, /home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent, and the dualcoachtest user service/profile metadata. Read the active handoff first, then full plan Task26 acceptance, Boulder, final ledger entries, latest Task26 receipts, current git status, processes, and matching systemd units. Do not edit files, mutate profile/runtime, start services, create invites, send Telegram/provider actions, or run git mutations. Observable stop condition: return a compact evidence-backed state table showing candidate authority, Gate18/19/20 status, reviewer lanes, gateway/watcher/profile state, exact remaining blocker, and one next action classified as offline-authorized or human-authorization-required. Cite exact paths/commands and report cleanup/non-touch evidence.\n\n<Category_Context name=\"deep\">\nYou are operating in DEEP mode. This is the category reserved for goal-oriented autonomous work on hairy problems that reward thorough exploration and comprehensive solutions.\n\nThe orchestrator chose this category because the task benefits from depth over speed. You should feel empowered to spend the time needed: five to fifteen minutes of silent exploration before the first edit is normal and correct. Rushing to implementation on a deep task is a failure mode, not a feature.\n\n# How deep mode adjusts the base behavior\n\n**Exploration budget: generous.** Read the files you need, trace dependencies both directions, fire 2-5 explore/librarian sub-agents in parallel for broader questions. Build a complete mental model before the first `apply_patch`. Exploration here is an investment, not overhead.\n\n**Goal, not plan.** You receive a GOAL describing the desired outcome. You figure out HOW to achieve it. The orchestrator deliberately did not hand you a step-by-step plan; producing one and asking for approval is not what was asked. Execute.\n\n**Atomic task treatment.** When the goal contains numbered steps or phases, treat them as sub-steps of ONE task and execute them all in this turn. Splitting them across turns is wrong unless they reveal an architectural blocker that requires the user's input. If the \"steps\" turn out to be genuinely independent tasks that should have been separate delegations, flag that in your final message and refuse the ones beyond scope.\n\n**Root cause bias.** Prefer root-cause fixes over symptom fixes. A null check around `foo()` is a symptom fix; fixing whatever causes `foo()` to return unexpected values is the root fix. Trace at least two levels up before settling on an answer. In deep mode, you have permission (and the expectation) to do the deeper fix.\n\n**Ambition scaled to context.** For brand-new greenfield work, be ambitious. Choose strong defaults, avoid AI-slop aesthetics, produce something you would be proud to hand to another senior engineer. For changes in an existing codebase, be surgical and respect the existing patterns; depth does not mean invasiveness.\n\n**Completion bar: full delivery.** \"Simplified version\", \"proof of concept\", and \"you can extend this later\" are not acceptable deliveries for a deep task. The orchestrator routed here specifically for a complete solution. If you hit a genuine blocker (missing secret, design decision only the user can make, three materially different attempts all failed), document it and return; otherwise, finish the task.\n\n**Status cadence: sparse.** The user is not on the other side of this conversation; the orchestrator is, and they will synthesize your progress. Send commentary only at meaningful phase transitions (starting exploration, starting implementation, starting verification, hitting a genuine blocker). Do not narrate every tool call; silence during focused work is expected.\n</Category_Context>"},"host_pid":4082105,"final_response":"I read this as a correction audit of the bootstrap premise - the fresh-invite path was conceptually wrong; Task26 should bind the retained completed-rehearsal evidence into a repaired successor candidate without restoring or repeating onboarding.\n\n## Hypothesis results\n\n| Hypothesis | Verdict | Evidence |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1. Bot connection existed, but live bootstrap/customer authority was cleaned | **Confirmed** | The Task25 archive’s `telegram-room-bootstrap-v1/ledger.json` retains session `rb_f4L9siIlDP-R6IF27GwxdA` as `ACTIVE`, with customer role claim `user_id/chat_id=8527916639`, message `124`. Its archived registry binds `task22_dm_rehearsal` to the same DM. Current registry has zero customers and current room ledger has zero sessions because Task25 deliberately reset them. |\n| 2. Restore/reconcile the archive into the live profile without a new invite | **Rejected as the next action.** | The archive contains sufficient authenticated history, but no supported live archive-restore operation was found. Task22’s journaled reconciliation was the already-completed forward transition, not authorization for selective reverse restoration after cleanup. Restoring the archive would also reintroduce enabled customer, activation, owner actions, scheduled delivery state, and a `sent_audited` delivery, violating Task25’s clean terminal acceptance. |\n| 3. A fresh bootstrap invite is required | **Rejected.** | The account was already bound and completed Tasks22-24. A fresh invite creates a second bootstrap lineage for an already-proven customer and contradicts Task22’s requirement to reuse the committed Q1-Q22 session. |\n\n## Decisive evidence\n\n### Task22 required reuse, not re-bootstrap\n\n`.omo/plans/dualcoach-production-readiness.md:710-724` requires:\n\n- reuse of the existing synthetic session’s committed Q1-Q22 answers and attestation;\n- supported journaled reconciliation into `owner_review`;\n- execution through the existing real Telegram relationship.\n\nTask22 evidence confirms completion:\n\n`/.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-22-evidence-index.json`\n\n- `terminal.phase = PUBLICATION_COMMITTED`\n- `terminal.answer_count = 22`\n- `terminal.answers_digest = f1aced03...`\n- owner callback count `1`\n- customer key `task22_dm_rehearsal`\n\n### Tasks23-24 completed through the same DM\n\n- `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-23-evidence-index.json`: activation/check-in completed, one draft and one owner-review card.\n- `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-evidence-index.json`: one accepted send and one audited synthetic delivery, provider message `157`.\n\nArchived delivery authority confirms destination `8527916639`, state `sent_audited`:\n\n```text\n.../2009ac177177839cefddb98f285e27fa/\n  payload/data/owner-actions/draft-deliveries.json\n```\n\n### Task25 intentionally removed live authority\n\n`.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-25-evidence.json` records:\n\n- archive ID `2009ac177177839cefddb98f285e27fa`\n- archive digest `644d74b0...`\n- 23 archived scopes\n- live customer registry emptied\n- rehearsal runtime/setup authorities remaining: `0`\n- gateway inactive/dead\n- delivery gate disabled\n\nThe archive still contains:\n\n- customer registry and DM binding;\n- 22-answer customer state;\n- active customer-role bootstrap session;\n- owner actions and publication receipts;\n- activation journals;\n- exactly-once delivery receipt.\n\nTherefore, the empty current profile proves cleanup, not absence of prior connection.\n\n### Post-launch repair used the wrong prerequisite for this phase\n\n`task26-post-launch-owner-review-repair-5e6f.../repair-receipt.json` changed the controller to require:\n\n- one live `AWAITING_ACTIVATION` room-bootstrap session;\n- one live `COMMITTED` onboarding projection with payload state `owner_review`.\n\nThat check only examines the cleaned live profile. It does not consult the verified Task25 archive or Task22-24 receipts. Consequently, it interpreted the successful Task25 cleanup as missing onboarding and led to the unnecessary fresh-invite path.\n\nThe controller fail-closed repair was valid mechanically, but its live-state prerequisite was inappropriate for a Task26 evidence review after canonical cleanup.\n\n## Authoritative correction\n\nThe current active handoff now states at `.omo/start-work/dualcoach-production-readiness-handoff.md:65-83`:\n\n- **Do not create a fourth bootstrap invite.**\n- User `8527916639` was already bound in archived active session `rb_f4L9siIlDP-R6IF27GwxdA`.\n- Task25 intentionally cleared the live registry.\n- Task26 must consume the immutable archive and live-rehearsal receipts as historical evidence.\n- It must not restore the archive or repeat onboarding merely to prove the existing binding.\n\n## Correct next action\n\n**Offline-authorized:** prepare the stable-source successor candidate graph that binds:\n\n1. the repaired controller source;\n2. verified archive manifest `ca481144...`;\n3. archive receipt `e81a84a8...`;\n4. canonical Task22-25 evidence indexes and live receipts;\n5. affected automated Gate18-20 reruns.\n\nThen rerun all six Task26 reviewer lanes against that successor candidate.\n\nDo **not** create another invite, restore the archive into `dualcoachtest`, restart the gateway, or ask account `8527916639` to reconnect.\n\n## Non-touch confirmation\n\nCurrent observations remain:\n\n- gateway: `inactive/dead`, `MainPID=0`\n- current registry SHA: `9eb1b5ae...`, zero customers\n- archive manifest SHA: `ca481144...`\n- archive receipt SHA: `e81a84a8...`\n- no matching gateway/Task26 process\n\nNo profile, archive, service, Telegram, provider, Git, or evidence state was mutated.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":156405,"turns":9,"tool_calls":38,"output_tokens":7469,"total_tokens":1601073,"generation_ms":152012,"tokens_per_second":49,"cost_usd":1.922906,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9887858007260992,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.8742146731559409}}