{"task_id":"st_01a01386","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":"2026-08-18T06:19:42.172Z","updated_at":"2026-08-19T12:12:41.208Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"surface-generation-lineage-repair","task_summary":"Fix surface receipt generation lineage","description":"Fix surface receipt generation lineage","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: new approved RED→GREEN repair cycle for the real blocker exposed by the actual artifact-driven Golden Path. Work in `/home/cube/projects/richard/hermes-agent`; preserve unrelated changes. No live/services/dualcoachtest/Git/plan/todo/evidence/harness script edits. Use programming/debugging disciplines.\n\nObserved exact bug: production driver reached SENT_AUDITED with one fake customer transport call, then `NutritionCoachingCoordinator.record_customer_surface_receipt` rejected its own authority. `draft-deliveries` retained approval generation=4 while `draft-generations` advanced through valid terminal transitions to generation=7. Current surface receipt validation requires equality and raises AdaptiveWorkflowError. Do not remove lineage validation or simply accept any later number.\n\nTest-first requirements:\n1) Add a failing regression reproducing approval generation 4 -> valid terminal descendant generation 7 and surface receipt persistence after SENT_AUDITED.\n2) Add negative tests: unrelated generation 7 chain, wrong predecessor/digest/draft/check-in/approval/candidate/customer, terminal chain that does not descend from the approved row, and stale delivery row all reject.\n3) Define the correct contract: distinguish approved/card generation pin from current terminal generation; bind both generation numbers and record digests in the surface receipt; verify by traversing/recomputing the authoritative `draft-generations` predecessor chain that terminal is a descendant of the pinned approved generation and all immutable lineage fields match. No backwards-compat shim is needed if no shipped surface receipt exists; use a new schema if persisted shape changes.\n4) Surface receipt remains corroboration only, cannot advance delivery, and receipt failure never retries provider transport.\n\nFirst reproduce RED against current code and preserve output. Implement minimally across surface receipt store/coordinator and tests. Run surface+delivery+generation related suites, full relevant gateway tests, ruff, ty, compileall, and a minimal driver mirroring generation4->7->receipt. Return files, RED/GREEN, exact commands/counts, schema/binding details, remaining risks. Stop source-ready; do not rebuild/run Golden Path.\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 a completed repair cycle - I implemented and verified the generation-lineage receipt contract without rebuilding the Golden Path.\n\nImplemented:\n\n- Added receipt schema `telegram-customer-surface-receipt-v2` under `customer-surface-receipts-v2`.\n- Separately binds:\n  - approved generation and record digest\n  - current terminal generation and record digest\n- Recomputes generation records, validates authoritative history, and traverses predecessor digests from terminal back to the pinned APPROVED record.\n- Validates immutable draft, check-in, customer, approval, candidate, capability, payload, route, and provider-receipt bindings.\n- Receipt digest now covers both generation pins and all lineage bindings.\n- Receipt remains `corroboration_only`; it does not mutate delivery state.\n- Added gateway coverage proving receipt failure does not retry transport.\n\nFiles changed:\n\n- `gateway/platforms/telegram_customer_surface_receipts.py`\n- `gateway/platforms/nutrition_coaching.py`\n- `tests/gateway/test_telegram_customer_surface_receipts.py`\n- `tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py`\n\nRED:\n\n```text\n.venv/bin/pytest -q tests/gateway/test_telegram_customer_surface_receipts.py::test_coordinator_binds_receipt_to_consumed_claim_and_exact_transport\n1 failed\n```\n\nFailure was the exact generation-7 versus delivery-row generation-4 authority mismatch. Output preserved at `/tmp/st_01a01386-red.txt`.\n\nGREEN:\n\n- Focused surface suite: `19 passed`\n- Final surface plus gateway failure path: `20 passed`\n- Delivery/generation/gateway set: `465 passed`\n- Generation hardening: `37 passed`\n- Nutrition coaching: `169 passed`\n- Surface/polling receipts: `38 passed`\n- Ruff: passed\n- Scoped ty: passed\n- Compileall: passed\n- Minimal driver output:\n\n```text\ntelegram-customer-surface-receipt-v2 approved=4 terminal=7 delivery_rows=1\n```\n\nMain verification command:\n\n```text\n.venv/bin/pytest -q \\\n  tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py \\\n  tests/gateway/test_task7_generation_hardening.py \\\n  tests/gateway/test_telegram_customer_surface_receipts.py \\\n  tests/gateway/test_adaptive_nutrition.py \\\n  tests/gateway/test_delivery.py \\\n  tests/gateway/test_delivery_silence_filter.py \\\n  tests/gateway/test_post_delivery_callback_chaining.py \\\n  tests/gateway/test_restart_redelivery_dedup.py\n```\n\nRemaining pre-existing issues:\n\n- Broad `tests/gateway/test_telegram*.py` collection fails in five onboarding modules because the installed `checkin_cli` lacks `nutrition_onboarding_clarification_policy`.\n- Full ty over the already heavily modified nutrition files reports 642 unrelated existing diagnostics; scoped receipt implementation/tests are clean.\n\nNo Golden Path rebuild/run was performed.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":1020867,"turns":41,"tool_calls":77,"output_tokens":23547,"total_tokens":2915490,"generation_ms":656478,"tokens_per_second":36,"cost_usd":3.132332999999999,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9821418138620032,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9246987233150861}}