{"task_id":"st_01a00af8","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":"2026-08-16T14:27:10.077Z","updated_at":"2026-08-18T18:50:37.733Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"activation-checklist-proof-map","task_summary":"Map six activation assertions to sealed evidence","description":"Map six activation assertions to sealed evidence","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":"Read-only evidence mapping in /home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach and /home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent for current final candidate 4e9962be and customer task26_live_2e_r2_20260815_8527916639. Independently prove or reject each exact activation checklist assertion: token_rotated; missend_test_passed; provider_terms_checked with privacy-v1; withdrawal_deletion_doc; retention_backup_doc; manual_fallback_doc. Search the plan, ledger, sealed candidate/gate/review evidence, profile consent/readiness receipts, docs/runbooks/tests. For each assertion return at least one authoritative existing file path, exact SHA-256 or embedded receipt digest, the specific field/text/test proving it, and whether it is current/candidate/customer bound. Do not treat the proposed new checklist as proof. Also verify the proposed receipt references (readiness receipt path/hash/digest, owner review receipt, ready path/hash, authority digest) against current bytes. Final verdict must be PASS_ALL_SIX or FAIL with exact missing assertion. Do not modify files/live state/service/network/Telegram/Git or run tests.\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 read-only evidence audit - I mapped each assertion to existing evidence, checked receipt references against current bytes, and applied a strict no-inference verdict.\n\n## Verdict\n\n**FAIL**\n\nExact missing assertions:\n\n- `token_rotated`\n- `provider_terms_checked` with provider terms version `privacy-v1`\n- `withdrawal_deletion_doc`\n\nThe other three assertions have existing evidence, although `missend_test_passed` is candidate-bound rather than customer-specific.\n\n## Assertion matrix\n\n| Assertion | Result | Authoritative evidence and proof | Binding |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `token_rotated` | **FAIL** | `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-runbook-rebind-2e0894ea-st_01a0054e/task26-golden-path-2e0894ea-v6.md`, SHA-256 `8416cd7c83cab5540af2e1e01dbcc5b1bdfd49a59d8ef21ea49512c28d749218`. Section 0 and Section 16 explicitly forbid “token or secret mutation.” Its G14 token-source `.env` still has current SHA-256 `154f588c89758c6ca6a1e06cc39ce9489d5c3ff8ace94e10e71cce919252bcca`, exactly the authoring hash. No rotation receipt exists. | Current bytes; runbook rebound to candidate `4e9962be` by `live-v5-ready.json`; not customer-specific proof of rotation. Evidence contradicts rotation during this window. |\n| `missend_test_passed` | **PASS** | `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-gate20-corrected-harness-4e9962be.../artifacts/corrected-full-gateway.junit.xml`, SHA-256 `661a56cae33ea0de997327c2e43df829d87caf65a58b8c0dfe489a4aafbac922`. Contains passing cases with no failure child: `test_handle_text_rejects_wrong_user_chat_or_topic_before_publish` for wrong user/chat/topic, `test_review_callback_rejects_wrong_user_before_service_mutation`, and `test_registry_routes_keep_customer_dm_separate_from_staff`. The sealing receipt, SHA-256 `b8cb0789d1247e54e95349117b47b465aa19e816c32296c937d1777e4d7ecb9a`, binds the JUnit to full candidate `4e9962be...` and reports `8159` passed, `0` failures/errors. | Current candidate-bound; generic route fixtures, not specifically customer-bound. |\n| `provider_terms_checked: {checked:true, version:\"privacy-v1\"}` | **FAIL** | Current customer receipt `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/data/customers/task26_live_2e_r2_20260815_8527916639/nutrition-onboarding/readiness-receipt-v1.json`, SHA-256 `10cf17fba0e0f60c43d0a379721b71a945ef2c4c168fff8f613c01448297edb4`, proves only `privacy_consent_version:\"privacy-v1\"` and consent digest. Neither this receipt nor the plans/docs/tests contains a provider terms/TOS review. Customer privacy consent is not provider-terms acceptance. | Current and customer-bound, but proves consent only; no provider-terms evidence. |\n| `withdrawal_deletion_doc` | **FAIL** | `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent/docs/nutrition-coaching/customer-onboarding-ko.md`, SHA-256 `6fab0167b813ff2c2c66b8f8c77bf8acbdf8b45c6ceaa9dd5f71ec434e73597d`, documents the withdrawal phrase. `trainer-runbook-ko.md`, SHA-256 `d9c2704107ea3e4754286fc6bfa361039d057bbce333d2106b0ed3b1766a3332`, merely instructs the operator to record future “data retention/deletion guidance”; it does not provide an actual deletion procedure, scope, deadline, or confirmation process. | Current repository docs; neither sealed to `4e9962be` nor customer-specific. Withdrawal is documented, deletion is not. |\n| `retention_backup_doc` | **PASS** | Golden Path v6, SHA-256 `8416cd7c...`, G11 and Sections 3/14 document retained-archive verification, archive-first backup, rollback boundary, byte-exact lifecycle archive, and preservation of historical archives. Candidate/customer observer `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-continuous-lifecycle-observer-v5-4e9962be/live-v5-ready.json`, SHA-256 `2ee3688d42c55e3267573a4220d18425181696a86dbdeab844d90132de124169`, binds `golden_v6:\"8416cd7c...\"`, successor `4e9962be...`, and the Task26 lifecycle. | Current, candidate-bound, and indirectly customer-bound through the observer’s fixed customer key. |\n| `manual_fallback_doc` | **PASS** | `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-runbook-rebind-2e0894ea-st_01a0054e/task26-recovery-runbook-2e0894ea-v6.md`, SHA-256 `a2e15845764e7041957ae4518096fe73f87ec35b57021980cdd4df3ea18ac00d`, supplies R1-R16 operator recovery procedures and abort rules. `live-v5-ready.json` binds this exact `recovery_v6` digest to candidate `4e9962be...`; `continuous_lifecycle.py` fixes the customer key to `task26_live_2e_r2_20260815_8527916639`. | Current, candidate-bound, customer-bound through the sealed observer. |\n\n## Proposed receipt-reference verification\n\n- **Readiness receipt path:** exists and is a regular mode-600 file.\n- **Readiness file SHA-256:** `10cf17fba0e0f60c43d0a379721b71a945ef2c4c168fff8f613c01448297edb4` — **matches**.\n- **Embedded readiness digest:** `857f37c973156c3dcc574dc1dd566f3e4724ddf29c2d44f552184d56e94a1a99` — **matches** both the field and a canonical SHA-256 recomputation after removing `digest`.\n- **Owner review receipt:** `c6ecd6cb55fd68989b04d60f5ef13491a821e261e43dc7c231d0d5fefa92262e` — **matches embedded references** in readiness, baseline, initial-plan, reconciliation, and adjustment-policy files. No standalone owner-review receipt file/path was found, so it is an embedded receipt identifier, not a verified file hash.\n- **Ready path:** exists and is mode 600.\n- **Ready file SHA-256:** `27906a0f33ac1fea128d88939c2d96ff53db0f43459ea90ad8812c446b09c611` — **matches**.\n- **Authority digest:** `8856ca5146cd74a6e9ed05dcd06747a694cd4f8415ee0575d673d04c9e310f09` — **matches** `ready.json` and recomputes from the current registry customer/owner routes, `privacy-v1` consent, and disabled state using the canonical digest algorithm. Current registry SHA-256 is `26602b034c85260b07692c4b91681eb80852dd5923c79d693bb4e1c357bda5be`.\n\nThe proposed checklist path does not exist, and no current checklist or activation audit is bound to this customer. The hypothetical checklist SHA-256 therefore proves nothing.\n\nNo files, live state, services, network, Telegram, or Git state were modified. No tests were run; only existing sealed results were inspected.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":265914,"turns":18,"tool_calls":60,"output_tokens":12100,"total_tokens":2987284,"generation_ms":256746,"tokens_per_second":47,"cost_usd":2.9470800000000006,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.993311325809295,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9181011997913406}}