{"task_id":"st_01a04145","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":"2026-08-27T03:31:18.585Z","updated_at":"2026-08-28T12:16:29.624Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"multi-customer-activation-receipts","task_summary":"Implement durable per-customer activation receipts","description":"Per-customer receipt implementation","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":"Implement the smallest safe per-customer activation receipt extension in /home/cube/projects/richard/.worktrees/nutricoach-channel-inbox-v150 so dualcoach/profile/tests/test_multi_customer_admission.py::test_two_customers_activate_with_independent_receipts passes without weakening legacy single-customer behavior. Current source already has RegistryAdmissionPolicy and bounded capacity. Requirements: keep the existing singular activation transaction journal and profile lock for one in-flight activation; add durable committed receipts under data/customer-activation-receipts/<customer_key>.json for multi-customer policy; existing first-customer v1-v3 committed journal must be validated against the pre-change registry then upgraded deterministically before a second activation overwrites the singular journal; new receipt version must bind customer projection, owner, admission policy, paths, audit record, readiness/membership/nutrition evidence, and transaction id without binding unrelated mutable customers; load_runtime_customer_registry and validate_committed_activation must validate every enabled customer independently; crash recovery must materialize a committed per-customer receipt or rollback exactly; default no-policy one-customer receipts and all existing tests remain compatible. Work test-first from the existing failing test, add focused recovery/tamper tests if needed, use apply_patch only, run targeted customer_admin/profile tests, static checks on changed/new files, and do not touch build/, live state, git, services, or Telegram. Return exact edits and evidence; stop only when targeted tests are green or report all blockers.\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":2754263,"final_response":"I read this as completed implementation - I added customer-scoped activation receipts while preserving singular-journal legacy behavior.\n\nImplemented:\n- Durable v4 receipts at `data/customer-activation-receipts/<customer_key>.json`.\n- Receipt bindings for customer projection, owner, admission policy, paths, audit record, nutrition/readiness, membership evidence, and transaction ID.\n- Deterministic v1-v3 singular-journal upgrade before journal reuse.\n- Independent enabled-customer validation in runtime loading and committed activation checks.\n- Receipt-aware commit recovery and exact rollback.\n- Legacy no-policy capacity errors and single-customer journal behavior preserved.\n- Added focused multi-customer, tamper, committed/prepared recovery, rollback, and withdrawal tests.\n\nVerification:\n- Targeted profile suites: **213 passed**.\n- Customer admin + multi-customer suite: **136 passed**.\n- `compileall`: passed.\n- `git diff --check`: passed.\n- Full profile suite: **742 passed, 14 failed**; all failures are pre-existing missing policy resources:\n  - `diagnostic-promotion-policy.json`\n  - `nutrition-restriction-kb-template-v1.json`\n\nChanged:\n- `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/customer_admin.py`\n- `dualcoach/profile/checkin_cli/customer_coaching.py`\n- `dualcoach/profile/tests/test_multi_customer_admission.py`\n\nNo build, live state, git operations, services, or Telegram were touched.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":693648,"turns":37,"tool_calls":65,"output_tokens":27701,"input_tokens":148946,"cache_read_tokens":2570240,"total_tokens":2746887,"generation_ms":602856,"tokens_per_second":46,"cost_usd":2.86088,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9918130146759883,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9452240486675056,"token_status":"complete","cost_status":"reported","duration_status":"monotonic"},"task_seq":5,"config_generation":0,"background_mode":"promoted"}