{"task_id":"st_01a01352","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":"2026-08-18T05:23:18.816Z","updated_at":"2026-08-19T11:56:02.347Z","notification":{"run_epoch":1,"notified_epoch":1},"name":"one-pass-golden-path-harness","task_summary":"Build full lifecycle Golden Path harness","description":"Build full lifecycle Golden Path harness","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: implement and run a repeatable one-pass Golden Path harness that proves the exact source candidate can traverse all user-visible phases before any live Telegram invite. Work in `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent` and profile source `/home/cube/.cache/task26-strict-successor-1786976146/src-p`; preserve unrelated changes. No live Telegram/provider calls, services, profile `dualcoachtest`, Git, plan, todo, or existing evidence mutations. Use an ephemeral private profile/temp root. Fake only external Telegram/provider I/O while preserving real ingress, persistence, receipt, unknown-outcome, restart, and exactly-once contracts.\n\nMandatory production journey in ONE test invocation/bundle:\n1) observer subscription established before invite intent, tied to actual filesystem/application commit signals (no sleeps/polling; exact events with bounded timeout);\n2) invite intent/receipt then serialized Start + consent through production Telegram adapter/runtime;\n3) exact 22 natural Korean fixture through actual `parse_answer` -> runtime collection -> profile service -> durable workflow, per-field cursor/update/publication receipts, canonical `네, 남성입니다.` -> male;\n4) malicious advisory provider fabricates questions for every field; deterministic committed reconciliation has issues0/holds0/visible0, provider prose absent, preview same policy but cannot satisfy production transition;\n5) customer attestation -> owner review publication with current generation/token;\n6) owner approval/finalization -> readiness -> explicit activation, customer disabled until activation;\n7) complete production nutrition daily check-in via actual wizard with one finalized event/revision;\n8) one generation intent/model attempt/draft bound to check-in;\n9) owner approval; approved-card projection persisted before capability eligibility;\n10) one-use capability issuance; explicit send consumes before transport; one fake provider receipt; SENT_AUDITED; duplicate callback transport count stays1;\n11) capture redacted customer-surface artifact/hash bound to provider message/payload (no real screenshot needed in automated harness; an exact rendered surface artifact is acceptable for pre-live gate);\n12) supported archive/disable/quiesce/cleanup to CLEANUP_COMPLETE with no pending/unknown/orphan/residual authorities.\n\nMandatory adversarial matrix same invocation or tightly related tests: provider unavailable still deterministic; provider-invented questions invisible prod+preview; ambiguous height fixed issue; sensitive disclosures hold not questions; stale answer/reconciliation/attestation callbacks mutate nothing; later issue revision exact binding; crash after reconciliation commit publishes committed record after restart; owner approved-card projection failure blocks capability and recovers; second awaiting row blocks issuance; stale/wrong/expired capability blocks; unknown delivery consumes and never retries; cleanup failure resumes forward; two cleanup callers yield one archive/receipt; preview cannot produce acceptance transition.\n\nEvidence output under a NEW private temp/evidence root owned by this harness (not current task26 evidence): candidate/source config digests, fixture manifest private0600 + public digest, observer subscription, hash-linked `lifecycle-events.jsonl`, transport receipts, adversarial matrix, cleanup receipt/archive manifest, independent verifier. No raw sensitive values in public event rows. Independent verifier must recompute hashes/ordering/required phases and reject declarations without artifacts.\n\nImplementation approach: first survey/reuse existing real test fixtures/controllers/services rather than mocking each domain into irrelevance. Add a focused integration test/harness file and minimal support module(s), each <=250 pure LOC where practical. If a real blocker is found, add a RED seam test and fix production minimally; report it explicitly. Avoid new global lifecycle authority: evidence graph observes existing authoritative receipts only. No fixed sleeps. Run harness once, related tests, ruff, ty/compileall. Return files, exact event phases/count/digests, tests, bundle path, real defects fixed, remaining gaps. Observable stop SOURCE_GOLDEN_PATH_PASS with CLEANUP_COMPLETE or fail cleanly with exact blocker; do not build wheels/deploy.\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 fail-closed evidence correction - the synthetic approach is removed and the strict verifier rejects both invalid bundles.\n\n`SOURCE_GOLDEN_PATH_FAIL: supported_customer_archive_receipt_api_unavailable`\n\nMissing production contracts: archive manifest receipt, resumable cleanup journal, single-winner concurrent cleanup, and post-cleanup authority inventory. No evidence root was created.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":181013,"turns":12,"tool_calls":24,"output_tokens":8681,"total_tokens":1799333,"generation_ms":174017,"tokens_per_second":50,"cost_usd":1.2741060000000002,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9935424414114471,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9853126123892303}}