{"task_id":"st_01a01a0f","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":"2026-08-19T12:43:57.939Z","updated_at":"2026-08-22T14:59:54.941Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"task27-f4-surface-final","task_summary":"Verify final real-surface evidence","description":"F4 real-surface evidence verifier","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":"FINAL VERIFICATION LANE F4 — REAL-SURFACE EVIDENCE. Read-only; no new Telegram/provider/network interaction, no profile mutation, no service start, no activation/delivery, no commits. Candidate `d1109d8f78aaccf949ec4f664d9e62584c3cca33032030518bc3e2d712239112`. Inspect the full plan and immutable Task22-25 Telegram/customer/owner evidence graph, Task26 delivered candidate bindings and hands-on receipts, and Task27 cleanup receipt. Confirm the customer and owner/operator used intended private Telegram surfaces for one real happy path; the customer observed exactly one synthetic delivery only after explicit send; receipts bind correct user/chat/message/generation/capability; archive/index hashes prove retention; no historical evidence is falsely presented as execution on v38; offline candidate qualification legitimately complements rather than rewrites the historical real-surface proof. Verify no new external action occurred in Task26/27. Return decisive `PASS`/`FAIL`, confidence, exact evidence paths/hashes/IDs, cross-binding matrix, gaps, and blockers. Stop only when every F4 acceptance clause is adjudicated.\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":4111719,"final_response":"I read this as a read-only F4 real-surface evidence audit - I traced the historical Telegram lifecycle, v38 bindings, and Task27 cleanup without external or mutating action.\n\n# F4 verdict: PASS\n\n**Confidence: 0.96**\n\nThe evidence supports one historical real-Telegram happy path on the intended private customer and owner/operator surfaces. Candidate v38 does **not** falsely claim that historical execution as its own; its offline and loopback qualification legitimately complements that proof.\n\n## Cross-binding matrix\n\n| Claim | Bound evidence |\n|---|---|\n| Customer private DM | user/chat `8527916639`, topic `0`, customer `task22_dm_rehearsal` |\n| Owner private DM | user/chat `8693203710`, topic `0` |\n| Owner onboarding approval | session `rb_f4L9siIlDP-R6IF27GwxdA`, update `629525053`, message `126`, generation `29` |\n| Check-in | session `6f31a1da4bea79f91675feffca5ffbeb`, event `wizard_995f04a3b8bc256fa13ff407`, revision `f266949e…f117ae1` |\n| Final owner card | token/draft `c8eab7b6685c3c65`, message `156`, route `8693203710/8693203710/0`, approved generation `4` |\n| Explicit send | accepted event `pilot_98dfe3a55ae098d313aa03d0`; approval preceded send by about 8m29s |\n| Customer delivery | exactly one row, chat `8527916639`, topic `0`, provider message `157`, `sent_audited` |\n| Terminal generation | generation `7`, receipt `157`, record `f1ced618…3a596b` |\n| Duplicate protection | stale/repeat/wrong-role: zero sends and mutations; one post-send restart, duplicate count zero |\n| Historical capability | Pre-capability legacy execution; no capability ID is falsely invented |\n| v38 source capability | `ec953b56…0b65f3`, owner `100`, customer `200`, card `700`, generation `4`, message `9001`, consumed |\n| v38 installed capability | `a62b0e24…19210`, same logical bindings, consumed |\n| Candidate binding | `d1109d8f…39112`, product binding `1b016220…5611c` |\n\nThe archived generation chain is ordered:\n\n`approved` generation 4 → `delivery_pending` 5 → `delivered` 6/message `157` → `sent_audited` 7/message `157`.\n\nThere is exactly one delivery ledger row and one accepted `draft_sent` event.\n\n## Historical integrity and retention\n\nAuthoritative archive:\n\n- ID: `2009ac177177839cefddb98f285e27fa`\n- Digest: `644d74b05bc8115f9e3aeeba035188da195a7de18f1bc737648931d64bf43bcf`\n- 23 retained scopes\n- Manifest: `ca4811444e114a06749620b9a44e05c8bd62bc3223ec80b1b5740c832c4a84c1`\n- Receipt: `e81a84a8584400401f83aace36283dee18660144ede11e854758e725796e7fb3`\n\nTask index hashes, all matching current bytes:\n\n- Task22: `cc4ac1264d947226f0e2ebfdd2f3845781d48ab298a71ae96c09517eecb26309`\n- Task23: `86b72c4c21b9f1113cb34e81b293e93ed7df7ac1388d3d1b31d9dc01dca3987a`\n- Task24: `4df0f8712887f2125e100ba8d7585914b7b8810a298c37f9a32584b31fabe04d`\n- Task25: `c3c40ff9406dbb2609ee7ef89be2fdc20fa139064b5d65e494c6efc8b2a80ed2`\n- Combined index digest: `419511b6fadb7920e155dcd5b57d20661d750a989ef0912e9ddf1bfbc0cb0abe`\n\nCore paths:\n\n- `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-24-live-terminal-evidence.json` — `7431b043…2258b4`\n- `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-25-live-terminal-evidence.json` — `30275bb8…d6378d`\n- `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-repaired-archive-successor-2e0894ea…/bindings/historical-archive-binding.json`\n- `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-repaired-archive-successor-2e0894ea…/bindings/task22-25-reconciliation-index.json`\n- `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/data/rehearsal-reset-archives/2009ac177177839cefddb98f285e27fa`\n\n## v38 qualification boundary\n\nv38 correctly labels Task22-25 as:\n\n`historical_only_not_execution_on_successor`\n\nand states:\n\n`historical_execution_retargeted_to_successor: false`.\n\nCandidate/seal evidence:\n\n- Candidate: `d1109d8f78aaccf949ec4f664d9e62584c3cca33032030518bc3e2d712239112`\n- Prefreeze seal: `257498e6…b037b9`\n- Postfreeze seal: `3002d815…5878f6`\n- Delivered bundle: `54be54cf…752f67`\n- Delivered inventory: 482 entries; all 396 file hashes independently matched\n- Postfreeze PASS: `83b8ca5c…bafa2`\n- Qualification proof: `8187d6a9…90f68`\n\nSource and installed Golden Paths independently bind candidate, owner/customer routes, card, generation, capability, message, and `sent_audited` receipt. Their Telegram API exercise was loopback-only with `external_traffic:false`, not new real-surface execution.\n\n## Task26/27 external-action adjudication\n\n**Task26:** zero Telegram actions and zero live-customer actions, confirmed by:\n\n- `.omo/evidence/task26/task26-v38-final-six-lane-review.json`\n- `.omo/start-work/ledger.jsonl:170`\n- Local-socket receipts show no external traffic.\n\n**Task27:** an explicitly authorized internal profile cleanup occurred, but no Telegram/provider action, activation, delivery, service start, release, push, or commit occurred.\n\n- Authorization: `c3b43617…ad5e`\n- Cleanup receipt: `7848def4…2a3a`\n- Operation: `e90fcc341e9f49c2a2c57ce46dd50c12`\n- Customer disabled/nonconsenting; service inactive/dead; active/pending/unknown/orphan counts zero.\n- Canonical cleanup manifest: `816a59cc…2704`\n- Bootstrap cleanup manifest: `e4f5b5c9…049f`\n- `.omo/evidence/task27/task27-live-cleanup-receipt.json`\n\n## Gaps\n\nNon-blocking integrity/documentation gaps:\n\n- Task22 records screenshots as unavailable.\n- One Task22 index child path, `.omo/senpi-task/children/st_019ff472/evidence/authorized-replay-evidence.json`, is absent from the current workspace. The core route/delivery chain remains independently retained in the verified archive.\n- `task27/receipt-hashes.sha256` predates the authorized cleanup: it omits the authorization/final cleanup receipts and contains the earlier controller hash. The final cleanup receipt directly binds the current controller hash `8aee38ea…443`.\n- Historical retention is hash-sealed and host-permission protected, not external WORM; this matches the plan’s disclosed trusted-host residual risk.\n\n## Blockers\n\n**None for F4.** The gaps above do not break the customer/owner route, explicit-send ordering, exactly-one delivery, retention, candidate-bound qualification, or no-new-external-action clauses.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":285805,"turns":17,"tool_calls":90,"output_tokens":13413,"total_tokens":2671827,"generation_ms":272376,"tokens_per_second":49,"cost_usd":3.361162000000001,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9004338729833331,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.8890233048727549}}