{"task_id":"st_01a02bf1","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":"2026-08-23T00:05:09.304Z","updated_at":"2026-08-25T04:57:50.985Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"golden-path-gap","task_summary":"Find why Golden Path passed while live finalization failed","description":"Audit Golden Path coverage gap","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":"Investigate hypothesis H3/read-only coverage audit: determine why the sealed Golden Path passed yet live owner approval entered finalizing and finalize raised ValueError. Worktree: /home/cube/projects/richard/.worktrees/nutricoach-v111-impl. Compare the exact Golden Path runner/tests to the real Telegram callback path including owner-risk acceptance and existing-customer state. Do not edit files or run git. Identify the missing branch/state/input and propose one regression test seam that would have failed before deployment. Return file:line evidence. Stop when the gap is causally explained.\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 a read-only root-cause audit - I traced the qualified runners, live Telegram callbacks, persisted live state, and finalization guards.\n\n## Finding\n\n**H3 is confirmed as a coverage gap, but the failure was not an enabled-customer projection error.** The missing case was:\n\n> owner-risk acceptance + loss goal + existing customer `starts_on` producing a slightly unsafe weekly trajectory.\n\n### Causal chain\n\n1. Live owner-risk acceptance succeeded and returned the workflow to `owner_review`:\n   - `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_callback.py:448`\n   - Live receipt is persisted in `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/data/customers/pilot_20260820_01/nutrition-onboarding/transient/workflow.json:1`.\n\n2. `owner_ok` durably changed the state to `finalizing` before attempting finalization:\n   - State mutation: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding.py:340`\n   - Save: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding.py:414`\n   - Callback review then finalize: `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_callback.py:520-528`\n   - Live logs prove this ordering: `gateway.log:11606` records `business_state_committed`, then `gateway.log:11607` records `transition_rejected`.\n\n3. Finalization uses the existing bootstrap/customer start date, not the approval date:\n   - `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime.py:277-278`\n   - Live registry start date is `2026-08-21`: `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/customers/registry.json:273`.\n\n4. Live baseline requested loss from `82.3 kg` to `75 kg` by `2026-10-22`:\n   - `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/data/customers/pilot_20260820_01/nutrition-onboarding/baseline-candidate.json:1`\n\n   This is 62 days / 8.857 weeks, requiring `0.82419 kg/week`, or **1.00145% of body weight per week**.\n\n5. The calculation permits at most 1% weekly loss and raises `UnsafeGoalTrajectoryError(ValueError)` above that:\n   - Date/weekly-rate calculation: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_calculations.py:114-119`\n   - Limit and exception: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_calculations.py:120-127`\n   - Called before artifact projection: `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/nutrition_onboarding_finalization.py:161`; projection is only at `:296`.\n\n6. The callback catches the `ValueError` after the finalizing commit and returns the generic stale-state response, without rollback:\n   - `gateway/platforms/telegram_nutrition_onboarding_runtime_callback.py:544`\n\n### Why Golden Path passed\n\nBoth sealed runners used a newly registered disabled customer and a safe maintenance goal:\n\n- Installed runner invokes the sealed source runner: `scripts/replay_dualcoach_v11_installed_golden.sh:47-55`.\n- Source Golden Path starts with an empty registry: `dualcoach/releases/v1.0.0/delivered/verification-tools/source_golden_path.py:637`.\n- It explicitly uses `customer_enabled=False`: same file `:752`.\n- Disposable Golden Path also starts with no customers: `scripts/dualcoach_v111_disposable_fixture.py:83`.\n- Its answer fixture chooses `\"유지\"`/maintenance: `scripts/run_dualcoach_v111_disposable_e2e.py:86-93`.\n- It goes directly through `owner_ok`, never `owner_risk`: same file `:1072`.\n\nThe domain owner-risk finalization test also inherits the maintenance example (`nutrition_onboarding_contract.py:87`) while only injecting clinical-hold fields (`test_nutrition_onboarding.py:640-642`). The Telegram owner-risk callback test mocks `record_owner_risk_acceptance` and stops at `owner_review`; it never invokes real finalization (`tests/gateway/test_telegram_operator_notification_recovery.py:416,453,523`).\n\n### Existing-customer state\n\nThe live customer was still correctly disabled:\n\n- `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/customers/registry.json:236-238`\n\nTherefore `nutrition_onboarding_projection.py:41-42` was not the exception. The relevant existing state was its pre-established `starts_on`, which made the live loss target marginally exceed the safety bound.\n\n## Regression seam\n\nAdd one real Telegram callback lifecycle test—without service mocks—parameterized with the exact live shape:\n\n- existing disabled registry customer, `starts_on=2026-08-21`;\n- `82.3 -> 75 kg`, target `2026-10-22`;\n- clinical-risk answers;\n- `owner_risk` callback followed by `owner_ok`.\n\nAssert that unsafe trajectory is surfaced before an irreversible owner-review commit and the workflow does **not** remain `finalizing`. This would have failed before deployment while covering the exact branch and input omitted by both Golden Paths.\n\nNo files were edited and no git commands were run.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":255227,"turns":21,"tool_calls":93,"output_tokens":11116,"total_tokens":2503471,"generation_ms":242707,"tokens_per_second":46,"cost_usd":2.4664230000000003,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9834869493632064,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9209346180620337}}