{"task_id":"st_01a02bcb","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":"2026-08-22T23:23:44.592Z","updated_at":"2026-08-24T23:31:41.072Z","notification":{"run_epoch":3,"notified_epoch":3},"name":"st_01a02bcb","task_summary":"Audit owner-risk security and replay boundaries","description":"Owner-risk security audit","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":"Audit the owner-risk-acceptance changes in /home/cube/projects/richard/.worktrees/nutricoach-v111-impl for security and authority integrity. Goal: identify bypasses, replay/stale-card issues, wrong-owner/candidate acceptance, false clinical labeling, unauthorized state transitions, or customer side effects. One deliverable: PASS/FAIL security verdict with file:line evidence. Do not modify files.\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":1082531,"final_response":"I read this as the final release-gate verdict - all previously identified integrity gaps are now closed.\n\n# PASS\n\nEvidence:\n\n- Finalization recomputes and verifies the canonical baseline payload digest before risk-history validation or artifact generation: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:87-105`.\n- Risk receipts are validated against the verified baseline and reconciliation binding before substituting for clinical review: `nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:142-160`.\n- Post-acceptance baseline tampering is rejected, then restoration successfully finalizes: `dualcoach/profile/tests/test_nutrition_onboarding.py:683-724`.\n- Acceptance-time baseline and reconciliation content validation remains enforced: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_owner_risk.py:207-238`.\n- Pregnancy and other medical-input readiness checks accept only clinical clearance or a validated owner-risk receipt; invalid receipts still fail readiness: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_readiness_validators.py:143-175`.\n- Acceptance history survives finalization in `ready.json`, while the validated latest receipt is embedded in the readiness baseline: `nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:201-209,305-315`.\n- Candidate, session, customer, baseline, reconciliation, current publication, exact owner route, and nonclinical labeling remain bound across publication and callback handling: `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_publication.py:128-149,357-370`; `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_callback.py:410-455`.\n\nVerification: focused security/domain suites passed, `37 passed`; diagnostics were clean. No files were modified.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":32477,"turns":3,"tool_calls":9,"output_tokens":1386,"total_tokens":616215,"generation_ms":29309,"tokens_per_second":47,"cost_usd":0.44078100000000003,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9775921324954152,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9668249220514973}}