{"task_id":"st_01a01328","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":"2026-08-18T04:34:39.723Z","updated_at":"2026-08-19T11:15:14.168Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"clarification-policy-redteam","task_summary":"Red-team clarification root fix design","description":"Red-team clarification root fix design","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 audit the profile source `/home/cube/.cache/task26-strict-successor-1786976146/src-p` for the complete mechanism that turns reconciliation output into customer clarification questions. Find every route/caller/test across all 22 onboarding fields. Propose the smallest robust root fix that prevents any model-generated question unless deterministic field/cross-field policy proves it necessary, while preserving safety and genuine ambiguity. Attack likely naive designs: static phrase tables, field-specific filtering, trusting advisory contradictions, clearing unrelated ambiguity lists, over-questioning, privacy leakage, digest/restart/duplicate issues. Return concrete invariants, adversarial test matrix, exact files/symbols, and verdict on whether current v7 patch is sufficient. Read-only; no live/service/evidence/Git/plan/todo changes. Observable stop independently reviewable red-team report.\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":1761519,"final_response":"I read this as an expanded read-only red-team audit - I mapped the one-pass production journey and identified what must be proven before another live invite.\n\n# Stop verdict\n\n**BLOCK another live invite.**\n\nThe current v7 harness does not observe or prove the requested golden path. It stops at invite delivery. Its “lifecycle observer” does not observe lifecycle transitions at all.\n\n## Existing evidence proves only invite preparation\n\n`deployment/v7/receipt.jsonl` contains:\n\n1. `DRY_RUN`\n2. `ONE_USE`\n3. `PROVIDER_READY`\n4. `PREPARED`\n5. `RUNTIME_READY`\n6. `MEMBERSHIP_READY`\n7. `READY`\n8. `INVITE_INTENT`\n9. `INVITE_RESULT`\n10. `READY_CUSTOMER_CLAIM`\n11. `CLEAN_ROLLBACK`\n\nIt contains no evidence for:\n\n- customer claiming the invite;\n- any of the 22 answers;\n- reconciliation;\n- customer attestation;\n- owner review;\n- finalization;\n- activation;\n- check-in;\n- generation;\n- approval;\n- capability issuance;\n- customer send;\n- screenshot;\n- successful retained cleanup.\n\nThe final rollback reports:\n\n```text\nreason = \"transient gateway/observer already active\"\nstatus = BLOCKED_CLEAN_ROLLBACK\n```\n\nThat means even cleanup was not established by a clean terminal proof.\n\n# Observer defect\n\n`lifecycle_observer_v7.py` declares states:\n\n```text\nmembership_hash_chain\npolling_receipts\nonboarding\ncheckin\ngeneration\napproval_card\ndelivery_capability\ndelivery\ncleanup\n```\n\nBut in `observe` mode it only:\n\n1. creates an events file;\n2. writes one `SUBSCRIBED` event;\n3. writes `observer-ready.json`;\n4. sleeps for six hours;\n5. exits blocked on timeout.\n\nIt never reads:\n\n- Telegram polling receipts;\n- onboarding workflow;\n- reconciliation records;\n- registry or activation journal;\n- check-in events;\n- generation ledger;\n- approved-card projection;\n- capability ledger;\n- transport receipts;\n- screenshots;\n- cleanup state.\n\nThe state list is therefore descriptive metadata, not evidence.\n\n# Required one-pass golden path\n\nThe next rehearsal must use a synthetic customer and the exact installed candidate, not preview. It must subscribe before the invite and produce one append-only, digest-linked evidence chain.\n\n## 1. Invite and claim\n\nRequired proof:\n\n- exact candidate, wheel, interpreter, config, registry and membership digests;\n- one `INVITE_INTENT` followed by one terminal `INVITE_RESULT`;\n- invite message ID, destination digest and bootstrap session/generation;\n- customer presses Start from the bound private route;\n- bootstrap state changes exactly once;\n- stale, duplicated and wrong-actor Start actions mutate nothing.\n\nThe current launcher proves invite send only, not claim.\n\n## 2. All 22 production answers\n\nExercise the actual chain:\n\n```text\nTelegram message\n -> runtime collection\n -> parse_answer\n -> NutritionOnboardingService.submit_answer\n -> durable workflow\n -> next production publication\n```\n\nUse exactly one accepted response for each field:\n\n1. `date_of_birth`\n2. `equation_sex_basis`\n3. `height_cm`\n4. `weight_kg`\n5. `activity_category`\n6. `activity_rationale`\n7. `goal_type`\n8. `target_weight_kg`\n9. `target_date`\n10. `allergies`\n11. `intolerances`\n12. `religious_ethical_exclusions`\n13. `disliked_foods`\n14. `dietary_preferences`\n15. `conditions`\n16. `medications`\n17. `pregnancy_breastfeeding`\n18. `eating_disorder_risk`\n19. `cooking_access`\n20. `budget_band`\n21. `meal_count`\n22. `schedule_constraints`\n\nTo exercise v7 specifically, the equation response should be a supported natural form such as `넵 남성입니다`, followed by proof that the stored answer is canonical `male`.\n\nRequired evidence per field:\n\n- field index and canonical field name;\n- inbound Telegram update/message ID and route digest;\n- pre/post cursor;\n- consumed-update proof;\n- canonical answer-set digest after mutation;\n- publication generation and message ID for the next field;\n- no raw answer in observer output;\n- previous question retired;\n- no duplicate publication for replayed updates.\n\nAfter field 22:\n\n- cursor exactly 22;\n- state exactly `customer_attestation`;\n- all canonical fields present once;\n- no unknown or extra field;\n- answer digest independently reproduced.\n\n## 3. Reconciliation\n\nRequired proof:\n\n- model invocation count exactly one for the current answer digest;\n- persisted reconciliation digest bound to that digest;\n- deterministic policy issue set independently recomputed;\n- no clarification unless that policy set is nonempty;\n- published content derived from the persisted record, not the transient model object;\n- production output contains no `[PREVIEW]` marker;\n- preview session and preview in-memory state are absent.\n\nFor a valid golden fixture, expected result is:\n\n```text\nstate = resolved\nclarifications = []\ncurrent_index = 0\n```\n\nThe current v7 patch cannot guarantee this across all fields.\n\n## 4. Customer attestation\n\nRequired proof:\n\n- card generation, body digest, message ID and callback token bind to the resolved reconciliation;\n- exact customer identity/chat/topic membership;\n- one `attest` callback;\n- callback update consumed once;\n- `require_resolved_reconciliation` succeeds against the current answer digest;\n- baseline candidate includes the same reconciliation digest;\n- customer receives confirmation;\n- state becomes `owner_review` or a deterministically justified `safety_hold`;\n- no activation occurs yet.\n\nNegative controls:\n\n- stale attestation card;\n- wrong actor;\n- duplicate callback;\n- changed answers after reconciliation;\n- unresolved reconciliation;\n- provider/model unavailable.\n\nAll must fail without owner publication or activation.\n\n## 5. Owner review and finalization\n\nRequired proof:\n\n- owner card is sent only to the canonical owner route;\n- its generation, message ID, body digest and callback data are persisted;\n- customer answer values are minimized appropriately;\n- exact owner presses `owner_ok`;\n- owner callback receipt is persisted before the irreversible handoff;\n- finalization consumes the same baseline and reconciliation digests;\n- readiness documents and pointer agree;\n- customer remains disabled until activation;\n- final ready card is owner-only.\n\nCrash seams to exercise:\n\n1. after owner callback receipt, before `review_as_owner`;\n2. after `review_as_owner`, before finalization;\n3. after finalization artifacts, before publication;\n4. after publication provider receipt, before profile commit.\n\nA restart must converge without a second owner action or duplicate card.\n\n## 6. Activation\n\nRequired proof:\n\n- readiness audit passes immediately before activation;\n- registry authority, consent and membership evidence are current;\n- activation journal transitions once;\n- disabled registry entry becomes enabled once;\n- bootstrap session becomes activated once;\n- activation receipt binds readiness, registry and membership digests;\n- stale or duplicate activation is idempotent;\n- no delivery capability exists yet;\n- delivery flags remain non-authorizing.\n\nThe current v7 launcher does not invoke or observe activation.\n\n## 7. First production check-in\n\nRequired proof:\n\n- message belongs to the newly activated customer route;\n- canonical check-in event is appended once;\n- finalized event ID and check-in revision are independently derived;\n- safety policy runs before generation;\n- duplicate/replayed check-in cannot create a second finalized event;\n- generated draft binds the exact check-in event ID and revision.\n\nInclude one stale-answer edit or duplicate update as a negative control without changing the golden event.\n\n## 8. Draft generation and owner approval\n\nRequired proof:\n\n- one generation intent;\n- one model attempt;\n- generation lineage from pending to draft-created;\n- exact check-in revision pin;\n- owner card displays the same proposed targets and customer text as the canonical draft;\n- owner card message ID, route, nonce and payload digest are captured;\n- approval creates one immutable approved event/revision;\n- customer has received nothing.\n\nImportant seam:\n\n`telegram.py` catches failures from `persist_approved_delivery_card()` after editing the Telegram card. The owner can see an approved/send-capable card even when the durable approved-card projection failed. The rehearsal must fault this write and prove send/capability issuance remains impossible.\n\n## 9. One-use capability\n\nRequired proof:\n\n- exactly one `awaiting_capability` row exists;\n- capability issuance is a separate operator action;\n- all launch, customer route, owner route, draft, generation, check-in, revision, approved-event, payload and card pins match;\n- expiry is exactly bounded;\n- provider and Telegram actions remain zero during issuance;\n- wrong, stale, expired or second capability issuance is rejected.\n\nThe controller globally requires exactly one awaiting row. Test a stray second row: issuance must block rather than target the wrong customer.\n\n## 10. Customer send\n\nRequired proof sequence:\n\n1. owner presses Send on the exact persisted card;\n2. capability is validated;\n3. capability is durably marked consumed;\n4. delivery state becomes `unknown_provider_outcome`;\n5. only then is Telegram transport attempted;\n6. provider message ID is persisted;\n7. delivery becomes delivered and then `sent_audited`;\n8. customer receives one message whose body digest matches the approved payload.\n\nAdversarial cases:\n\n- duplicate Send callback;\n- stale card message ID or nonce;\n- changed owner/customer route;\n- expired capability;\n- changed draft/check-in revision;\n- crash after capability consumption but before Telegram call;\n- Telegram timeout after possible send;\n- receipt-write failure after confirmed send;\n- process restart in every intermediate state.\n\nNo ambiguous provider outcome may be retried automatically.\n\n## 11. Screenshot\n\nA screenshot is human-facing corroboration, not delivery authority.\n\nRequired evidence:\n\n- screenshot captured from the bound customer DM after the audited provider message ID exists;\n- image SHA-256;\n- capture timestamp;\n- expected Telegram message ID and approved body digest;\n- visual assertion that exactly one delivered card is shown;\n- no preview banner;\n- no other customer data or credentials;\n- private retention path and mode.\n\nThe observer must not treat screenshot presence as proof of send. The durable transport receipt remains authoritative.\n\n## 12. Cleanup\n\nRequired terminal proof:\n\n- retention interval completed or explicitly waived by a recorded authority;\n- screenshot archived or deleted according to policy;\n- transient gateway and observer stopped;\n- no active invite, onboarding workflow, preview session or capability;\n- no unreceipted publication;\n- no `unknown_provider_outcome`;\n- no duplicate customer delivery;\n- registry and activation artifacts retained or removed according to the declared test-customer policy;\n- temporary customer data removed through the supported cleanup path;\n- config flags restored unchanged;\n- baseline authority inventory compared before/after;\n- service state `inactive/dead`;\n- a final append-only `CLEANUP_COMPLETE`, not `CLEAN_ROLLBACK`.\n\n# Preview-versus-production seams\n\nThe golden path must explicitly prove preview was not involved.\n\nPreview differs materially:\n\n- consent is hardcoded `True`;\n- answers and clarification cursor are only in memory;\n- no answers digest;\n- no durable reconciliation;\n- model clarifications are published directly;\n- restart loses the session;\n- final rerun suppresses further clarifications;\n- publications are marked `[PREVIEW][NUTRITION ONBOARDING]`.\n\nRequired negative test:\n\nRun the same 22 synthetic answers through preview and production with a malicious reconciler that requests a question for every field. Production must publish only deterministically proven issues; preview must either use the same policy or be disabled. Current code fails this case.\n\n# Other seams existing tests miss\n\n1. **Transient versus persisted clarification mismatch**  \n   Filtering a clarification in the profile service does not replace the gateway’s in-memory model object before first publication.\n\n2. **Static sex phrase coverage**  \n   Tests prove selected phrases, not the actual full Telegram parser/service/persistence route.\n\n3. **Blind reconciliation advancement**  \n   Except for sex, clarification replies are not shown to resolve their issue.\n\n4. **Owner Revise always selects field 1**  \n   `op_rev` hardcodes `QUESTION_FIELDS[0]`, regardless of what the owner intended to revise.\n\n5. **Safety handoff**  \n   A golden fixture with no safety signal does not prove conditions, medication, pregnancy or eating-risk disclosures cannot be cleared by advisory output.\n\n6. **Attestation fallback card**  \n   Model/reconciliation errors can leave the generic attestation UI visible even though enforced attestation will reject.\n\n7. **Approved-card projection failure**  \n   Telegram edit succeeds while persistence failure is only logged.\n\n8. **Capability issuance races**  \n   Approval state can change between card persistence and external controller issuance.\n\n9. **Cross-suite mocks hide installed-package seams**  \n   Existing tests independently mock reconciliation, owner cards, activation and delivery. They do not prove the same installed candidate carries one digest chain across all phases.\n\n10. **Observer is non-observing**  \n    Declared states and handoffs are never validated.\n\n11. **Cleanup self-conflict**  \n    The current rollback calls `baseline()` before transient services are stopped or recognized as stopped, producing `transient gateway/observer already active`.\n\n# Minimum evidence acceptance gate\n\nBefore another invite, require one machine-verifiable bundle containing:\n\n- exact candidate and installed-origin proof;\n- observer subscription receipt;\n- 22 ordered redacted ingress receipts;\n- answer digest;\n- deterministic reconciliation issue proof;\n- reconciliation digest;\n- customer attestation receipt;\n- baseline/readiness digests;\n- owner review receipt;\n- activation receipt and registry digest;\n- finalized check-in event/revision;\n- generation lineage;\n- approved-card receipt;\n- capability issuance and consumption receipts;\n- Telegram transport receipt;\n- `sent_audited` terminal row;\n- screenshot hash and message-ID binding;\n- cleanup inventory and `CLEANUP_COMPLETE`;\n- adversarial results for stale, duplicate, wrong-route, crash and preview cases.\n\nUntil that bundle exists, the current `8191 passed`, `705 passed`, `51 passed`, and `55 passed` receipts demonstrate broad unit/integration health but do not demonstrate the requested one-pass live-safe journey.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":338759,"turns":16,"tool_calls":74,"output_tokens":16448,"total_tokens":1845874,"generation_ms":329884,"tokens_per_second":50,"cost_usd":2.468218,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9542099367518942,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.8712328347798708}}