{"task_id":"st_01a0163e","status":"lost","residency_state":"disposed","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":false,"created_at":"2026-08-18T19:00:04.379Z","updated_at":"2026-08-18T23:09:49.173Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":-1},"name":"assess-task26-trust-root","task_summary":"Assess external trust-root requirement","description":"Review evidence trust boundary","category":"architect","requested_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","source":"category","variant":"xhigh","reasoning_effort":"xhigh"},"fallback_models":[{"provider":"clinepass","model_id":"cline-pass/glm-5.2","display":"clinepass/cline-pass/glm-5.2","source":"category","variant":"xhigh","reasoning_effort":"medium"},{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-terra","display":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-terra","source":"category","variant":"xhigh","reasoning_effort":"xhigh"}],"resolved_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"GPT-5.6 Sol","source":"category","variant":"xhigh","reasoning_effort":"xhigh"},"spawn_spec":{"version":1,"cwd":"/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach","prompt":"Review the Task26 production-readiness plan and evidence model as a legitimate internal release-engineering system. Determine whether an owner-level attacker who can rewrite the entire source repository, ledger, verifier, manifests, and evidence files is inside the plan's stated threat model, and whether a detached external signature/privilege-separated trust root is therefore a release blocker. Context: current candidate uses frozen 0500/0400 files, SHA-256 closure, source/wheel/installed parity, append-only candidate authority, and ledger binding, but all are owned by the same operator account. The security reviewer demanded an external trust root. Provide one decision: REQUIRED blocker, recommended defense-in-depth, or out-of-scope, grounded in exact plan clauses and common release evidence trust boundaries. If external trust is required, name the smallest legitimate mechanism that does not fake independence; if not, state the explicit trust-boundary wording reviewers should apply. Read-only, no edits or external actions. Stop when the threat-model decision is justified.\n\n<Category_Context>\nYou are a big-picture system design consultant, NOT an implementer.\n\n<Method>\n1. Survey the WHOLE architecture end to end before proposing anything: module boundaries, data flow, ownership, and the blast radius of the area in question.\n2. Produce at least TWO viable designs and state the trade-offs of each in concrete terms (coupling, testability, migration cost, failure modes).\n3. Recommend ONE of them with the reasoning that decided it, the boundaries it assumes, and the risks it carries.\n4. Demand the SIMPLEST architecture that handles the actual requirements. Reject enterprise patterns that do not pay for themselves.\n</Method>\n\n<Advisory_Mode>\nWhen the caller marks the task advisory-only, produce NO file edits: return the analysis, options, recommendation, and risks as structured text.\n</Advisory_Mode>\n</Category_Context>"},"host_pid":1757898,"error_message":"in-process task from a previous process cannot be reattached"}