{"task_id":"st_01a05d0c","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":"2026-09-01T12:57:51.650Z","updated_at":"2026-09-01T13:05:24.791Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"diagnose-r71b-overlay-stale","task_summary":"Trace overlay drift and prove fresh candidate r3 inputs","description":"Diagnose stale authoritative overlay and prepare r3","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":"TASK: Read-only/disposable recovery for immutable r71b candidate attempts 1 and r2; determine why authoritative r2 used stale overlay and produce a safe candidate-r3 input sequence. DELIVERABLE `/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-10-r71b-candidate-r3-overlay-recovery.json`, verdict RECOVERABLE/blocker, exact expected digests and commands. No source edits, Git, live, authoritative candidate-r3/preseal/action roots, network/customer/provider. Inspect failed attempt1 and r2 immutable trees/manifests/inputs/successor-overlay, current freeze134, current `SUCCESSOR_OVERLAY_PATHS`, latest disposable candidate evidence and sealer invocation semantics. Diff only path/hash metadata; identify exact stale source and whether r2 reused attempt1 overlay/shared input root. Prove current `scripts/nutricoach_v150_r71b_preparation.py` hash is present in current canonical overlay and differs from failed overlay. Build a fresh disposable input bundle from current worktree/source freeze/authority receipt with unique names and verify candidate input closure. Seal two disposable candidates from that exact bundle under different outer names; require expected current digest (or report new exact digest), candidate verifier PASS and no reference to failed candidates. Verify candidate outer path not identity. Model one authoritative immutable input root `task-v15r71b-maintenance-inputs-r3` and candidate `task-v15r71b-maintenance-candidate-r3`; preseal explicit candidate path. Check all these roots absent and failed trees unchanged. Guard stale/shared/foreign overlay, input-root reuse, omission/tamper. Remove disposable roots; do not create authoritative input/candidate. Provide exact prewrite hash manifest and safe seal sequence.\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 completed recovery evidence delivery - I traced the stale overlay, proved a safe r3 sequence, and verified cleanup and immutability.\n\nCreated:\n\n`/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach/.omo/evidence/nutricoach-telegram-checkin-stepper/task-10-r71b-candidate-r3-overlay-recovery.json`\n\n- Verdict: `RECOVERABLE`\n- Expected candidate digest: `2a85524e610edef582583bb89e6cde57ccd03fe9a9489887fd6c8319e10843f6`\n- Evidence SHA-256: `5e27bc6d6179294638daccec7950fbaff7be1516a15ae9cbc7fd8e6d1a4e5acd`\n- Root cause: r2 used its fresh receipt root but reused attempt1’s stale shared overlay.\n- Two disposable candidates passed canonical verification with identical identities under different outer paths.\n- Disposable roots removed; authoritative r3 roots remain absent.\n- Attempt1 and r2 immutable trees remained unchanged.\n- JSON parsing, diagnostics, freeze134 revalidation, and root-absence checks passed.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":452946,"turns":18,"tool_calls":46,"output_tokens":20719,"input_tokens":157326,"cache_read_tokens":1654272,"total_tokens":1832317,"generation_ms":427529,"tokens_per_second":48,"cost_usd":2.2353359999999998,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.993919225123949,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9131562300245418,"token_status":"complete","cost_status":"reported","duration_status":"monotonic"},"task_seq":81,"config_generation":0,"background_mode":"background"}