{"task_id":"st_01a05ab3","status":"completed","residency_state":"resident","parent_session_id":"01a04e1a-4e0a-7c69-845d-0b5d1e71f82d","root_session_id":"01a04e1a-4e0a-7c69-845d-0b5d1e71f82d","depth":1,"execution_mode":"in-process","model":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","notify_on_terminal":true,"created_at":"2026-09-01T02:01:31.398Z","updated_at":"2026-09-01T02:07:10.903Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"r71-candidate-recovery","task_summary":"Find policy-safe r71 candidate retry path","description":"Determine safe immutable r71 recovery","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":"GOAL: Determine the exact policy-safe recovery path that still delivers generation r71 after immutable `task-v15r71-candidate` failed verification, without deleting/mutating/reusing it or advancing silently to r72. ONE DELIVERABLE: `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-8-r71-recovery-analysis.json` plus concise verdict `recoverable` or `requires-user-decision`. READ-ONLY except evidence file. IMPLEMENTATION ROOT `/home/cube/projects/richard/.worktrees/nutricoach-v150-combined`; migration root `/home/cube/.hermes/migrations/nutricoach-v1.5.0-combined`. HARD: no Git/GitHub, source edits, root deletion/mutation, sealing/build/preseal/authority/execution, network/customer/service actions. Read exact Todo8-10 plan, failed Task8 evidence, candidate/input/preseal/sealed controller/live scripts and tests, current failed root/manifest, registry read-only, and historical failed-generation naming patterns. Determine with code evidence: (1) whether a fresh uniquely named attempt such as `task-v15r71-candidate-r2` can be sealed and later selected while generation remains r71; (2) whether candidate/root name is part of authority/package digest or only a path; (3) every hardcoded path/controller/preseal/test reference that must change; (4) whether the failed root can remain an immutable tombstone and be excluded from trust; (5) whether any single-candidate-per-generation guard forbids a retry; (6) whether adding `tests/gateway/test_nutrition_coaching.py` to successor overlay fixes the exact mismatch without broadening trust; (7) exact prewrite absence checks and one-use semantics for the retry. Prefer a fresh r71 retry if policy/code supports it; do not invent policy. If supported, provide exact root name, required minimal source/test edits, verification sequence, and proof it satisfies the approved r71 outcome despite original candidate failure. If unsupported, name the exact guard and why only r72/user approval can proceed. Record current roots/hashes and no-effects cleanup. STOP WHEN: decision-complete recovery verdict is evidence-bound.\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":1353625,"final_response":"I read this as a request for the final recovery verdict - the evidence-bound analysis is complete.\n\n**Verdict: `recoverable`**\n\nUse fresh immutable `task-v15r71-candidate-r2`; generation remains r71. The failed candidate remains an excluded tombstone.\n\nEvidence: `.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-8-r71-recovery-analysis.json`  \nSHA-256: `0d7bde1218f3fd979cc832f272c2c3152bd3dc2bcf1e05d74e0f8390f4f8ac81`\n\nValidated JSON, unchanged failed root, and continued absence of retry/r71 effect roots.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":339332,"turns":12,"tool_calls":44,"output_tokens":15640,"input_tokens":225773,"cache_read_tokens":1448448,"total_tokens":1689861,"generation_ms":318164,"tokens_per_second":49,"cost_usd":2.3222890000000005,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9939363223342444,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.865147432746334,"token_status":"complete","cost_status":"reported","duration_status":"monotonic"},"task_seq":55,"config_generation":0,"background_mode":"background"}