{"task_id":"st_01a015c6","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":"2026-08-18T16:44:43.360Z","updated_at":"2026-08-20T13:01:40.216Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"review-provenance-09a669d","task_summary":"Final provenance audit on successor","description":"Final provenance review","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":"Perform final independent RELEASE PROVENANCE audit for exactly candidate 09a669ddc42875998d34a7d7cb07ae575af06037fcb1438512bbc3930cc990d9 in /home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/task26/task26-native-seven-clause-installed-st_01a01574-v3. Recompute candidate/product/runtime/seal hashes, wheel/RECORD/install/import origins, source-wheel-installed parity including task26_evidence_contract.py, 242-file immutable inventory, source preservation, test logs/counts, source and installed seven-clause receipt chains, independent verifier results, cleanup, old-candidate invalidation, and ledger line 157 bindings. Read-only only. Return cryptographically grounded PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE with commands, discrepancies, blockers, and residual risk.\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 final read-only release-provenance verdict - I independently recomputed the candidate bindings and treated non-reproducible verification as release-blocking.\n\n# Verdict: FAIL\n\nCandidate `09a669ddc42875998d34a7d7cb07ae575af06037fcb1438512bbc3930cc990d9` has a cryptographically intact evidence envelope, but it is not independently re-verifiable in its final frozen state.\n\n## Release blockers\n\n1. **Bundled independent verifier fails on the sealed bundle**\n   ```bash\n   PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 \\\n     python tools/independent_verify_candidate.py\n   ```\n   Result:\n   ```text\n   fresh verifier failed: {\"reason\":\"artifact permissions are invalid: .../installed-golden-bundle\",\"status\":\"SOURCE_GOLDEN_PATH_FAIL\"}\n   EXIT=1\n   ```\n   All files are mode `0400` and directories `0500`, but `verify_source_golden_path.py:939` calls:\n   ```python\n   private(root, directory=True)\n   ```\n   which accepts only mode `0700`. It should accept frozen mode `0500`. The same defect prevents current adversarial-fixture verification.\n\n2. **Exact installed-runtime recomputation is impossible after cleanup**\n   The declared runtime is absent:\n   ```text\n   /home/cube/.cache/task26-native-seven-clause-runtime-st_01a01574-v3\n   ```\n   Therefore the installed filesystem, installed `RECORD`, interpreter invocation, and import origins cannot be freshly observed. The sealed receipts are internally consistent and wheel-backed, but not runtime-reproducible.\n\n3. **`task26_evidence_contract.py` lacks source-wheel-installed parity**\n   Source/evidence copies are byte-identical:\n   ```text\n   1ecb5d824507f9ea57e4646bb418ebd5750e79244748d298598890a456e8d9c3\n   ```\n   However neither wheel contains this file. It is sealed as an external evidence tool, not proven through source -> wheel -> installed parity.\n\n4. **Old-candidate invalidation is successor-declared only**\n   The new candidate and ledger invalidate:\n   - `2efe939a...`\n   - `cbbfc12d...`\n\n   But both predecessor manifests still independently state `INSTALLED_GOLDEN_PATH_PASS`; there is no predecessor-local tombstone. This leaves ambiguous authority for consumers that do not consult candidate 09 or ledger line 157.\n\n## Cryptographic checks that passed\n\n- Candidate digest recomputed exactly:\n  ```text\n  09a669ddc42875998d34a7d7cb07ae575af06037fcb1438512bbc3930cc990d9\n  ```\n- Product digest over parity products:\n  ```text\n  7e34e3e6ff80445a3a90fecb74bf04ae44d22b255adb3c599b6ce9c44d6199da\n  ```\n- Installed golden-bundle digest over 87 files:\n  ```text\n  7be095e941c03f3a8f87c659ce9571df7c417fe6f1529564b88d244b585b590e\n  ```\n- Bundle seal over exactly 242 files:\n  ```text\n  324664b7ac3fe1737b2c6c6efe45aca2a2b2fa7f6b9cce32bccbdc08b836afb1\n  ```\n- Inventory structure:\n  - 243 total files\n  - 239 candidate-indexed files\n  - 242 seal-covered files, excluding only `seal.sha256`\n  - exact path/hash/size parity\n  - 243 files mode `0400`; 83 directories mode `0500`\n  - no symlinks, ownership/link-count issues, or writable paths\n\n### Wheels and recorded installation\n\n- Hermes wheel:\n  ```text\n  SHA-256 1f334e9f0ba33dda814ef4477630e2fb5c0f2980654574d170a071c0c9d01f66\n  987 members; RECORD valid; zero member mismatches\n  ```\n- Profile wheel:\n  ```text\n  SHA-256 62c508d3548ed5f5fe28c1a137bbc1b6af286d48419dc9e66fa4c7c8422b4121\n  58 members; RECORD valid; zero member mismatches\n  ```\n- Every wheel member matches the sealed installed-inventory hash/size mapping.\n- All 90 loaded-module receipts match wheel bytes.\n- All five import-origin paths match loaded-module provenance; recorded `PYTHONPATH` is null.\n- Installed binding digest recomputed:\n  ```text\n  7dd4ebf652040cf5cb681b2e1c7bc64559b08bfc1b39ce9e890bfb19dbc71325\n  ```\n\n### Source preservation and product parity\n\n- Exact current source -> wheel product parity:\n  - profile: 54/54 files\n  - Hermes: 963/963 files\n- Profile source seal: 89 rows, zero mismatches.\n- Hermes source seal: 28,351 rows, zero mismatches.\n- Hermes pre/final/current git-status bytes are identical:\n  ```text\n  21519f96962ea83502becb05443386761224bff879ada4f13a86b7ab7b865199\n  ```\n- Source provenance: 137/137 Python files, exact tree digest:\n  ```text\n  b34b2a12fd0ad3d4c95a58c847a2411e81272a646f5a4f5ec568d0d3640a3747\n  ```\n\n### Seven-clause chains\n\nBoth chains independently passed sequence, clause order, same-invocation binding, candidate binding, artifact hashes, previous links, and receipt hashes:\n\n- Source:\n  ```text\n  invocation df1372078b1ea996dc08e445ddb38987\n  head       1e1f756546ca1866f3b79639ab032609de7067b0cd6bdf55a887fe17d6e0b4b5\n  ```\n- Installed:\n  ```text\n  invocation 295433ecea9ca319e95ca8ef50134833\n  head       69abdc8c831adb6c81c0ac5706aff29c8a7f135f50aafc2e8d98bf9b039ea905\n  ```\n\n### Sealed test receipts\n\nHashes and expected success markers match:\n\n- Contract: 51 source + 51 installed\n- Focused: 106 source + 106 installed\n- Related installed: 76\n- Profile: 749\n- Gateway: 8,288 passed, 59 skipped, 0 failed across 374 files\n- Ruff, Ty, profile Ruff, compileall, CLI help, and pip check: PASS\n\nThe two stored installed-verifier outputs are byte-identical and the stored independent-verification result is internally consistent, but neither can now be freshly reproduced through the supplied verifier.\n\n### Cleanup and ledger\n\n- Runtime absent; no matching runtime directory remains.\n- Terminal inventory records zero active, pending, unknown, or orphan entries.\n- Ledger line 157 matches all 13 checked bindings: candidate, installed candidate, product, runtime, seal, candidate-file hash, seal-file hash, independent verifier, installed verifier, native receipts, contract summary, gateway log, and cleanup artifact.\n\n## Residual risk\n\nThe bundle uses unkeyed SHA-256 and a mutable, non-signed ledger rather than an external signature or transparency anchor. Even without the verifier defect, it proves internal consistency and current source parity, not independent creation-time authenticity.\n\nNo files were modified.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":351533,"turns":14,"tool_calls":61,"output_tokens":16439,"total_tokens":1505304,"generation_ms":339857,"tokens_per_second":48,"cost_usd":2.020823,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9806295692103196,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.8830995422687752}}