{"task_id":"st_01a01a16","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":"2026-08-19T12:53:38.789Z","updated_at":"2026-08-22T14:08:24.859Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"f2-legacy-authority-semantics","task_summary":"Classify legacy authority and trainer archives","description":"Classify legacy and trainer profile residue","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":"READ-ONLY DEBUG LANE. Investigate H3/H4 for Task27 F2 FAIL. Inspect live `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest`, execution code, plan, Task25 archive manifests/receipts, and exact candidate evidence. Determine whether `data/migrations/nutrition-readiness-v1/legacy-activation-authority.json` for `gate_d_delivery` is current consumable authority or inert stale migration residue; whether `data/gate-d-delivery-g5-checklist.json` belongs with it; and whether trainer-named paths under `data/rehearsal-reset-archives/**` are forbidden active artifacts or required immutable historical evidence. Trace all runtime consumers/readers, modes, manifests, and plan wording. Do not edit anything. Return decisive classification, evidence, minimal remediation if any, and what F2 should exclude or still fail.\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 resolving H3/H4 false positives - the legacy files are inert retained migration evidence, and trainer-named archive paths are historical payload, not active trainer authority.\n\n## Decisive classification\n\n### H3: `legacy-activation-authority.json` — exclude from F2 failure\n\n**Classification:** retained, customer-bound migration evidence; **not current consumable authority**.\n\nIt is read only by the legacy branch of `_require_committed_activation_receipt()` in `customer_admin.py`. That branch is reachable only when all of these match:\n\n- the customer is currently registered and `enabled=true`;\n- a committed legacy activation journal exists;\n- journal customer, registry/data/audit paths, registry digest, and audit receipt match;\n- the manifest matches that exact customer, journal digest, current registry nutrition projection, and current owner digest;\n- the customer data directory exists.\n\nCurrent live state defeats every relevant prerequisite:\n\n- Registry contains only `task26_claim_20260818145508_1b96b23d`, disabled and nonconsenting.\n- `gate_d_delivery` is absent.\n- `data/customers/gate_d_delivery` is absent.\n- `data/customer-activation-journal.json` and activation audit are absent.\n- Runtime validation iterates only enabled registry entries.\n\nTherefore the manifest cannot activate, enable, route, or deliver for `gate_d_delivery`. Calling it an “orphan authority” is semantically wrong; it is **inert stale migration residue deliberately retained by cleanup policy**.\n\nEvidence:\n\n- Live manifest SHA-256: `10463f38e7e1c1977a83bc9a7a3ee0b033053cdacccaa692243f80eb20b2c064`\n- Reader: `workspace/checkin_cli/checkin_cli/customer_admin.py:1910-1935`\n- Enabled-only dispatch: `customer_admin.py:1983-1993`\n- Writer: `nutrition_onboarding_migration.py:58-92`\n- Task25 reset code explicitly preserves `data/migrations`.\n- Task26 cleanup contracts explicitly list `migrations` as a protected data root.\n\n### `gate-d-delivery-g5-checklist.json` — belongs to the same historical customer, but is a separate inert prerequisite\n\nIt is historical G5 evidence for `gate_d_delivery`, not authority by itself.\n\n- Activation never discovers this filename automatically; a caller must explicitly pass a checklist path.\n- The checklist is checked against the currently registered customer, data root, registry, consent version, token-rotation policy, membership evidence, readiness evidence, and the locked activation transaction.\n- The named customer and data root no longer exist.\n\nTask25’s reset implementation deliberately preserves both:\n\n- `migrations`\n- `gate-d-delivery-g5-checklist.json`\n\nTask26 cleanup contracts repeat that protection. Removing only one would produce a misleading partial historical record. If historical residue is ever relocated, archive the manifest and checklist together with provenance; no release remediation currently requires that.\n\nChecklist SHA-256: `e7d0d8c86839197de0a29bdd64e0c88d768f35b9040d108ea3717bbcffe5a21b`.\n\n## H4: trainer-named paths inside rehearsal archives — exclude from active-residue scans\n\n**Classification:** sealed historical payload, not active product/profile authority.\n\nDirect live scan found:\n\n- **zero trainer-named paths outside** `data/rehearsal-reset-archives`;\n- 16 trainer-named paths inside archive payloads.\n\nThose include:\n\n- old trainer binding files from archive `9b128933...`;\n- Task22’s `trainer-authority-removal-v1` migration record inside Task25 archive `2009ac...`.\n\nThe latter is affirmative evidence that trainer authority was removed. Deleting it would destroy part of the exact Task22-25 provenance chain. Task25 intentionally archived customer state and verified 23 scopes; Task26 binds that archive as:\n\n> `historical_compatibility_and_provenance_evidence_only`\n\nand explicitly states:\n\n> `historical_execution_retargeted_to_successor: false`\n\nAuthoritative binding:\n\n- Archive `2009ac177177839cefddb98f285e27fa`\n- Digest `644d74b05bc8115f9e3aeeba035188da195a7de18f1bc737648931d64bf43bcf`\n- Manifest `ca4811444e114a06749620b9a44e05c8bd62bc3223ec80b1b5740c832c4a84c1`\n- Receipt `e81a84a8584400401f83aace36283dee18660144ede11e854758e725796e7fb3`\n- Binding: `task26-repaired-archive-successor-653cc2f0.../bindings/historical-archive-binding.json`\n\nRuntime code does not traverse archive payloads for customer loading, routing, activation, claims, cards, or delivery. Archive readers are explicit reset verification/provenance tools.\n\nThe archive trees are owner-private (`0700`/`0600`), not filesystem read-only. “Immutable” here means hash-sealed historical evidence, not WORM storage. F2 should verify hashes and boundaries rather than grep payload names.\n\n## Minimal remediation\n\nFor H3/H4: **none. Do not delete or rewrite these artifacts.**\n\nCorrect the F2 scanner/classifier to:\n\n1. Exclude `data/rehearsal-reset-archives/**` from active trainer/route/card/claim residue findings.\n2. Treat archive contents only as historical evidence and integrity-check them separately.\n3. Classify a legacy migration manifest as active authority only if its exact customer is enabled and the complete matching committed-journal graph exists.\n4. Treat top-level G5 checklists as explicitly supplied evidence, not automatically consumed authority.\n\n## F2 disposition\n\n- **H3 should be withdrawn.**\n- **H4 should be withdrawn.**\n- These findings do not justify F2 FAIL.\n- F2 may still fail only on independently proven non-archive live residue, such as the publication outbox, if its committed rows remain runtime-consumable or violate the explicit no-workflow acceptance clause.\n- The stale Task27 hash manifest is a real handoff/provenance cleanup item, but other final lanes consistently classify it as nonblocking; it is not evidence of trainer authority.\n- On H3/H4 alone, F2 should report **PASS / false-positive correction**, not FAIL.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":180285,"turns":11,"tool_calls":54,"output_tokens":8569,"total_tokens":1980832,"generation_ms":172672,"tokens_per_second":50,"cost_usd":2.729963,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9552446437757668,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.857459679566062}}