{"task_id":"st_01a04896","status":"completed","residency_state":"resident","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":"2026-08-28T13:34:19.002Z","updated_at":"2026-08-30T13:06:36.044Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"v14-closure-audit","task_summary":"Audit V14 candidate and source closure","description":"Audit candidate and source closure integrity","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 integrity audit of final V14 candidate f419822577035f2f906b054b598676b06bc1d1570c31c3c8c99cce4d45758d8f and package 66d7ef8b46700e703ceb4dd4c8aa0e832f60e48999974fa6b6f32d6cf73d2b24. Inspect candidate /home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-v150-combined/task-v14d-candidate, V14 r2 preseal, and source worktree. Verify two reproducible wheel pairs, source/physical inventory, sealed wheel mode/hash/import ordering, controller and verifier closures, and no source drift. Do not modify files or use network. Return PASS/FAIL with exact proof.\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":1174611,"final_response":"I read this as a final integrity verdict - I audited the candidate, V14 r2 preseal, and bound source worktree without writes or network access.\n\n# FAIL\n\nThe artifact hashes are internally correct, but the release cannot pass integrity audit because the sealed controller and verifier closures are incomplete. The referenced wheels are also owner-writable rather than physically read-only.\n\n## Passing proof\n\n- Candidate digest independently recomputed:\n  - claimed: `f419822577035f2f906b054b598676b06bc1d1570c31c3c8c99cce4d45758d8f`\n  - recomputed from canonical `derivation_inputs`: identical.\n- Package digest independently recomputed:\n  - claimed: `66d7ef8b46700e703ceb4dd4c8aa0e832f60e48999974fa6b6f32d6cf73d2b24`\n  - recomputed from canonical package payload: identical.\n  - package file SHA-256: `63faebb387b013be6da1d92def7cd06da0bda234296b43d116fd535ee1497f2c`\n  - sealed-target binding: identical.\n- Candidate physical inventory:\n  - expected files: `323`\n  - actual files: `323`\n  - missing: `[]`\n  - extra: `[]`\n  - symlinks: `[]`\n  - hash failures: source `[]`, inputs `[]`, wheels `[]`, evidence `[]`.\n- Source worktree reconciliation:\n  - source entries: `309`\n  - drift count: `0`\n  - source digest: `7272a74005688f6a89766bcab7a9d3ad03ffef25d75f5ca7c8ecd7b56eff8fc7`\n  - equals manifest claim.\n- Reproducible wheel pairs:\n  - Hermes build-1/build-2 byte-identical:\n    `7769edae877d4f373107ba2aa74e2d71c6b703c1382ddf3f4e21d36d2ac11825`\n  - Profile build-1/build-2 byte-identical:\n    `ca187949e6183c45057182efe7100497b4a617226515c122e6994a1107b1a55b`\n  - Hermes wheels: `1041` members, no duplicate or RECORD errors.\n  - Profile wheels: `122` members, no duplicate or RECORD errors.\n- Import ordering is correct:\n  - bootstrap constructs `Hermes wheel : profile wheel : source_root`\n  - Hermes contains `188` `gateway/` members.\n  - Profile contains `118` `checkin_cli/` members.\n  - neither wheel contains a `scripts/` package.\n- Official read-only verifiers currently report:\n  - `NUTRICOACH_V150_CANDIDATE_PASS`\n  - `V14_LIVE_REPRESENTATIVE_PRESEAL_VERIFIED`\n  - closure digest `sha256:5462ed34b9c399c9fb31f444c1ddff79c7e4bc992242f8a3f704319c21ffff90`\n- Authority remains untouched:\n  - ledger: absent\n  - execution root: absent\n  - successor runtime: absent\n\n## Failing proof\n\n### 1. Controller closure is not transitively closed\n\n`controller-source-manifest.json` has `311` entries, but recursive local-import traversal from `scripts/nutricoach_v150_controller_worker.py` reaches seven unsealed files:\n\n```text\nscripts/execute_nutricoach_v150_live_upgrade.py\nscripts/nutricoach_v150_live_upgrade_boundary.py\nscripts/nutricoach_v150_live_upgrade_common.py\nscripts/nutricoach_v150_live_upgrade_state.py\nscripts/nutricoach_v150_phase_journal.py\nscripts/nutricoach_v150_sealed_authority.py\nscripts/nutricoach_v150_sealed_target.py\n```\n\nDirect proof includes `nutricoach_v150_sealed_controller.py` importing four of these. They execute after closure verification but are not hash-bound by the controller manifest. Therefore they can drift without `verify_closure()` detecting it.\n\n### 2. Verifier closure is not closed\n\n`verifier-source.json` contains only:\n\n```text\nscripts/verify_nutricoach_v150_preseal_v14.py\n```\n\nIts reachable unsealed local imports are:\n\n```text\nscripts/nutricoach_v150_detached_bootstrap.py\nscripts/nutricoach_v150_live_upgrade_common.py\nscripts/verify_nutricoach_v140_candidate_core.py\nscripts/verify_nutricoach_v150_candidate.py\nscripts/verify_nutricoach_v150_candidate_inputs.py\n```\n\nThus the official verifier can report PASS while executing five source files outside its own verifier seal.\n\n### 3. Wheels and preseal are not physically read-only\n\nAll four candidate wheels are mode `0644`, including the two wheels referenced by `sealed-target.json`. They are owned by the executing UID and remain owner-writable.\n\nThe bootstrap check only rejects:\n\n```python\nstat.S_IMODE(info.st_mode) & 0o022\n```\n\nThat rejects group/world writes but permits owner write (`0200`). Therefore current `0644` wheels pass despite being mutable by the same authority executing the bootstrap.\n\nAdditionally, all nine V14 r2 preseal files are mode `0664`. Package hashes currently reconcile, but the “frozen” package is physically owner/group-writable and its inventory does not bind modes.\n\n## Conclusion\n\nThe candidate’s enumerated bytes, wheel reproducibility, package derivation, and listed-source no-drift checks pass. The final release fails because operational controller/verifier dependencies are outside their respective seals, and the referenced artifacts are writable rather than immutable. No files were modified and no network was used.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":225275,"turns":10,"tool_calls":44,"output_tokens":10094,"input_tokens":119364,"cache_read_tokens":481792,"total_tokens":611250,"generation_ms":211494,"tokens_per_second":48,"cost_usd":1.140536,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9694556057319632,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.8014425540126023,"token_status":"complete","cost_status":"reported","duration_status":"monotonic"},"task_seq":12,"config_generation":0,"background_mode":"background"}