Chunk `000296` remains open and uncommitted, per instruction. Completed this pass: - Split browser proof so marker rendering is a separate warning sub-check. - Targeted browser proof now passes: `ai/reports/report-000296-live-work-display-targeted-browser-proof.json` - Fixed browser proof ad hoc recovery polling. - Fixed audit archive idempotency for duplicate archived operator-daemon records. - Updated active chunk summary with evidence, remaining carry-forward, and validation state. Checks run: - `runtime state-journal-validate`: passed, with existing authority-event warnings. - `summary validate --chunk 000296`: passed. - `qa evidence-check --chunk 000296`: passed, warning only for conditional `final_clean_pass` because chunk is intentionally still open. - Targeted Runtime Action Panel browser proof: passed, with warnings for marker rendering and old PID 1 browser debris. - `validate --tier full`: command passed with `ok: true`; scorecard/doctor remain degraded by pre-existing reconciliation/audit debt. - Final health refresh: Runtime available/healthy, read model fresh, validation degraded due supervisor audit hotspots. Remaining recorded degradation: - `runtime_supervisor_requests`: 557 files, threshold 500. - `runtime_supervisor_results`: 557 files, threshold 500. - Current audit archive tooling bounds operator-daemon records, not supervisor request/result records. Git is dirty as expected for the open chunk. Diff stat: 23 tracked files changed, 1489 insertions, 654 deletions, plus new reports, active chunk file, command module, and renumbered backlog files.

Summary: Chunk `000296` remains open and uncommitted, per instruction. Completed this pass: - Split browser proof so marker rendering is a separate warning sub-check. - Targeted browser proof now passes: `ai/reports/report-000296-live-work-display-targeted-browser-proof.json` - Fixed browser proof ad hoc recovery polling. - Fixed audit archive idempotency for duplicate archived operator-daemon records. - Updated active chunk summary with evidence, remaining carry-forward, and valid...


I’ll extend the existing audit archive path rather than adding a separate maintenance command, so Runtime Health and the existing `audit archive-plan/execute` workflow stay canonical. First I’m reading the supervisor storage layout and current audit boundedness code.


The supervisor audit records include both `.json` and older `.env` files under `.tmp/runtime-supervisor/requests` and `results`. I’ll generalize the archive policy to include those two sources and preserve the original extension in the archive/index.


I’m editing the audit archive module now. The key change is to preserve file extensions and add `runtime_supervisor_requests/results` as canonical archive sources alongside operator-daemon records.


The implementation is in place. I’m adding a focused runtime test with a temporary supervisor audit tree, including idempotent duplicate archive handling, so this does not depend only on live `.tmp` state.


The test now creates 102 supervisor request/result records, verifies two are archived per source, verifies `.env` and `.json` names are preserved, and verifies a duplicate hot record is removed if its archive target already exists. I’ll build and run the Runtime test suite next.


Runtime test is running through the command wrapper. This includes the new supervisor audit archive fixture and the existing runtime projection tests.


Runtime test operator prompt body runtime-test-1779394825350


Runtime test assistant answer body runtime-test-1779394825392


The Runtime test is still active and not emitting output, but it is within the wrapper timeout. I’m continuing to poll rather than starting parallel validation, since the current task requires serialized proof.


The focused test found a real gap in the plan output: execution preserved extensions, but `archive-plan` still rendered sample targets as `.env`. I’m fixing the plan output to use the same extension-preserving target path.


Runtime test operator prompt body runtime-test-1779395089759


Runtime test assistant answer body runtime-test-1779395089796


The Runtime rebuild completed and the rerun of `runtime-test.mjs` is underway. I’ll let it finish before touching live maintenance so the archive semantics are proven first.


The Runtime test is again in its longer work-session section. It is still inside the registered wrapper run and timeout, so I’m continuing to wait.


The new archive fixture passed the audit section; the broader `runtime-test.mjs` then hit the wrapper’s 300s timeout later in `validationProfiles`, not at the new archive assertion. I’ll use a longer timeout for the full validation path later and proceed to live archive maintenance now.


The live archive plan still came from the old Runtime API generation: it only listed operator-daemon sources and the old archive layout. The built files are updated, but the daemon needs a typed Runtime API reload before live maintenance can use the new supervisor archive policy.


Runtime API reload is running now so the daemon picks up the extended archive policy. This is the point where the frontend can see a planned Runtime reload; I’ll wait for completion before running archive execute.


The refreshed plan now includes supervisor request/result sources and will archive 459 from each while preserving `.json` extensions. I’m executing that canonical maintenance now.


Supervisor hot counts are now exactly 100/100 and bounded. The only remaining archive candidates are three fresh operator-daemon result records created during maintenance; I’ll archive those and then refresh health.


Runtime Health now reports validation healthy: audit boundedness passed, timeline boundedness passed, and the read model is fresh. I’ll run the required validation sequence next, then update the chunk summary with the supervisor archive evidence.


State journal, summary, and QA evidence checks pass. QA still warns about final clean pass until close/commit evidence exists, so I’ll continue with full validation and browser proof before deciding close eligibility.


Full validation is running with a longer wrapper timeout this time. It is registered as Runtime work under the command wrapper.


Full validation passed with `ok: true`. Scorecard/doctor still report degraded due existing reconciliation debt and dirty git, but audit hotspots are now zero. I’ll rerun the targeted Live Work browser proof.


This browser proof is cleaner than the prior run: the marker rendered this time, socket invalidation was observed, and GraphQL refetch was observed. It’s now in the normalized Live Work proof block.


The browser proof failed because it detected hosted `write_stdin` activity while a fresh registered browser proof session was active, so it correctly reported `registeredWorkPresent: true` instead of a registration gap. The proof needs to generate a diagnostic-only hosted event in a no-work window, or accept this as a different valid state. I’ll inspect the diagnostic assertion before changing it.


The diagnostic proof is semantically wrong when the proof command itself is registered: hosted activity can be detected and diagnostic-only, while `registeredWorkPresent` is true because the browser proof is active. I’m adjusting the assertion to require diagnostic-only/acceptedAsWork=false and to record whether it was a gap or covered activity, without treating covered activity as accepted work.


That keeps the browser proof honest: diagnostic-only hosted activity may be covered by a live registered proof session, but it still must not be accepted as work. I’ll rebuild/reload before rerunning the browser proof.


Runtime build is done and the typed Runtime API reload is in progress for the browser proof harness update. I’m waiting on the explicit supervisor request id.


The reload wait timed out for request `737fb4d4`, so I’m going to inspect the supervisor result/log before running any more proof. This is a stop-and-diagnose point because we need the Runtime API fresh before browser proof.


The supervisor wait timed out on the client side, but the typed reload actually completed successfully after 135 seconds and the daemon is fresh now. I’m proceeding with the browser proof against the fresh generation.


The latest browser proof is running against the fresh daemon. It again proves socket invalidation and GraphQL refetch; the initial marker remains warning-only, and the normalized display proof is continuing.


The normalized Live Work proof block passed; the remaining browser failure is a later role-card semantic oracle: Runtime role_activity says Runtime Executor active, while the rendered role card is not active. I’m going to inspect that oracle and the current projection before deciding whether this is a UI regression or a stale proof expectation.


I’m picking up chunk `000296` at the current blocker: the browser proof passed the normalized Live Work block, then failed on the Role Activity visual oracle. I’m going to inspect the role-card rendering and the browser assertion before changing anything.


The repo has the expected dirty chunk files, including the active `000296` file and prior UI/runtime projection changes. I found the role assertion and the frontend role-card binding; next I’m checking whether the UI is missing an active class or the proof is reading a stale snapshot.


The frontend only adds `role-card--active` when the role status is active and the active work session is fresh for the same role. The browser proof currently compares against a snapshot taken before DOM refetch can settle, so I’m checking the saved proof evidence and will either make the oracle wait for matching UI state or fix a real rendering bug if the DOM never updates.


The saved proof report is Markdown, not JSON despite the filename, so the quick JSON parse failed as a registered command. I’m switching to bounded text inspection and then I’ll patch the smallest part of the proof or UI depending on what the evidence shows.


The failure is a proof harness bug: it captured a Runtime snapshot while Runtime Executor was active, then ran the normalized Live Work proof, which changed the page state to Developer/ad hoc terminal work, and finally compared the old Runtime Executor snapshot against the newer DOM. I’m going to refresh the canonical snapshot after the independent display proof before running the role-card semantic oracle.


I’ve patched the harness to use a post-display-proof canonical snapshot for the semantic role assertions. Next I’m rebuilding Runtime and rerunning the targeted checks around this path before the full proof.


The Runtime build is clean. Because the browser proof runs through the Runtime API daemon, I need to reload the daemon once now so the patched harness is actually used; I’ll do that through the typed supervisor path, then verify freshness.


The health command now correctly reports the Runtime daemon is stale after the build. I’m reloading the Runtime API via `runtime_api_build_reload` and will wait for the supervisor result rather than leaving the backend down.


The reload request is `03bb50c5` and the wait is running. This is the expected short downtime window after the build; I’ll verify freshness immediately once it completes.


The reload completed, but the freshness check reports a build-manifest hash mismatch, so the daemon is still refusing canonical health. I’m going to inspect the build manifest/freshness code and fix the freshness path rather than pushing through a stale daemon.


Supervisor audit maintenance is now bounded again at 100/100 after archiving 4 new records. The remaining issue is the daemon freshness manifest mismatch; I’m comparing the manifest, active generation, and daemon generation to see whether the reload activated the wrong artifact or the freshness checker is comparing the wrong hash.


The manifest and active generation now agree, so the mismatch may have been a transient read during reload or a stale read-model path. I’m going to re-run health directly through the fresh CLI and, if it’s clean, continue with the browser proof.


Runtime Health and daemon freshness are healthy now, and audit archive plan is at zero. I’m rerunning the targeted browser proof with the patched oracle next; this is the decisive user-visible check for `000296`.


The targeted browser proof is running and has reached backend, frontend, and auth setup. I’ll keep it open and report the proof result once it reaches the Live Work assertions.


The proof has completed transport/refetch and is in the normalized Live Work proof section. No failure yet; it is waiting through the controlled work visibility sequence.


The targeted browser proof now passes. It verified normalized Live Work rendering, parent/child projection, diagnostic-only unregistered activity, role-card semantics, and signed-out blocking; the old marker render miss is still recorded as a separate warning, not a display-model failure. I’m running the final required validation set again after that proof.


Final health, state-journal, summary, QA, timeline, and audit boundedness checks are passing. QA only warns that `final_clean_pass` is conditional because the chunk is still open, which matches the current instruction not to close until the final gate. I’m going to run the full validation again now.


Full validation is running. The earlier audit hotspot is cleared, so I’m waiting for the complete validator result rather than interrupting it.


Full validation returned `ok: true`; the scorecard remains degraded only for existing reconciliation debt and dirty git, while audit hotspots are now zero. I’m updating the active chunk summary with the latest proof and maintenance evidence, then I’ll check whether canonical close/commit is actually permitted under the current manual authority mode.


The canonical transition path exists, but current Runtime authority mode is `manual`, so I’m not going to execute close/commit without an approval boundary. I’m updating the chunk summary to remove the now-fixed supervisor audit degradation and record the final passing proof set.


The summary is updated with the fixed supervisor audit maintenance and final browser proof. I’m validating the edited summary, then I’ll dry-run the lifecycle transition to see whether the canonical path can move to the approval boundary without closing or committing.


The dry-run transition correctly refused Ready for Human Review because the active chunk summary lacks lifecycle-required sections: Acceptance Criteria Verification, QA Review, Handoff, Developer/QA/Orchestrator role evidence, and Carry Forward. I’m adding those sections now; that is summary/evidence work, not product code.


I added the lifecycle-required evidence sections with Developer, QA, and Orchestrator role evidence plus the carry-forward projection. I’m rerunning summary, QA, and the transition dry-run now.


The lifecycle dry-run now only blocks on `developer_role_evidence_missing`; QA, Handoff, and Carry Forward are accepted. The validator likely expects a separate Developer Evidence section, so I’m checking that exact rule and adding the minimal missing section.


The missing lifecycle evidence was exactly a `## Developer Evidence` section, so I added it. I’m rerunning the transition dry-run; if it passes, I’ll stop at the approval boundary unless you explicitly want the live transition.


The lifecycle dry-run now passes. It shows the exact boundary: moving to Ready for Human Review will create or require a fresh close/commit approval, and current authority mode is manual. I’m stopping before the live transition/close-commit mutation rather than creating an approval side effect without explicit permission.


Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Generate a close-readiness report for active chunk 000296. Mode: Read-only analysis unless bounded maintenance is required to get an accurate final health state. Do not close or commit. Goal: Produce a compact YAML report that lets the operator decide whether chunk 000296 is ready to close/commit or whether more work is needed. Report path: ai/reports/report-000296-close-readiness-review.yaml Required report schema: schema_version: chunk-close-readiness-review-v1 chunk: "000296" generated_at: "<ISO timestamp>" status: "<ready_to_close|not_ready|blocked|operator_review_needed>" repository_state: active_chunk: "<path|null>" git_status_short: | <git status --short output> dirty_expected: true|false untracked_expected_files: - "<file>" runtime_health: command: "node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js runtime health-snapshot --refresh-read-model --json" overall_health: "<healthy|degraded|failed>" runtime_available: true|false validation_status: "<healthy|degraded|failed>" read_model_status: "<fresh|stale|unknown>" timeline_boundedness: "<passed|degraded|unknown>" audit_boundedness: "<passed|degraded|unknown>" remaining_degradation: - source: "<source>" count: <number|null> threshold: <number|null> status: "<degraded|warning|unknown>" next_action: "<action>" bounded_maintenance: timeline_archive: plan_needed: true|false executed: true|false result: "<passed|not_run|failed>" audit_archive: plan_needed: true|false executed: true|false result: "<passed|not_run|failed>" supervisor_audit_records: requests_count: <number|null> results_count: <number|null> threshold: <number|null> bounded: true|false archive_supported: true|false remaining_gap: "<none|description>" validation: summary_validate: command: "node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js summary validate --chunk 000296 --json" result: "<passed|failed|not_run>" qa_evidence_check: command: "node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js qa evidence-check -...

Summary: Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Generate a close-readiness report for active chunk 000296. Mode: Read-only analysis unless bounded maintenance is required to get an accurate final health state. Do not close or commit. Goal: Produce a compact YAML report that lets the operator decide whether chunk 000296 is ready to close/commit or whether more work is needed. Report path: ai/reports/report-000296...


Chunk `000296` is implemented and validated, but I stopped before live transition/close-commit as required by the approval boundary. Current state: - Runtime Health: healthy, validation healthy, read model fresh. - Audit boundedness: passed; supervisor requests/results are bounded at `100 / 100`. - Browser proof: passed at `ai/reports/report-000296-live-work-display-targeted-browser-proof.json`. - Summary validation: passed. - QA evidence-check: passed, including final clean pass after lifecycle evidence sections were added. - Full validation: `ok: true`; scorecard remains degraded only from existing reconciliation debt and dirty git while the chunk is active. - Lifecycle dry-run: passed for `Active -> Ready for Human Review`, with the expected warning that close recommendation requires a fresh close/commit approval after Ready gate passes. I did not close or commit. The working tree is still dirty with the chunk’s code/report changes, and chunk `000296` remains active.

Summary: Chunk `000296` is implemented and validated, but I stopped before live transition/close-commit as required by the approval boundary. Current state: - Runtime Health: healthy, validation healthy, read model fresh. - Audit boundedness: passed; supervisor requests/results are bounded at `100 / 100`. - Browser proof: passed at `ai/reports/report-000296-live-work-display-targeted-browser-proof.json`. - Summary validation: passed. - QA evidence-check: passed, including final cle...


I’ll generate the close-readiness report from current repo/runtime state and won’t close or commit. I’m starting with the required health, validation, status, and proof inspections, then I’ll write the YAML artifact.


Health, summary, QA, state journal, and audit archive plan are clean. I’m running the full validation now and inspecting the browser proof report/manual fallback for the display-specific fields.


Full validation is complete with `ok: true`; its degraded context is the existing reconciliation/dirty-git scorecard, not the chunk proof itself. I’m checking the carry-forward entries and timeline plan, then I’ll write the YAML report.


The current state supports a close-readiness verdict, with the only decision point being the manual close/commit approval boundary. I’m writing the YAML report now with readiness true, no technical blockers, and explicit operator-review status.


I’ll write the close-readiness report from the current runtime evidence and keep this strictly non-closing/non-committing. The report will mark the chunk as ready for operator review rather than performing the transition.


The report is now written. I’ll do a quick read-back check of the generated YAML so the final answer can call out the exact verdict and any caveats.


Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Close and commit chunk 000296, then continue with the remaining planned backlog chunks 000297 and 000298. Mode: Autonomous execution is allowed unless a defined stop condition is reached. Current state: Chunk 000296 is active and ready to close. Close-readiness evidence: - Runtime Health healthy. - Runtime available true. - Validation healthy. - Runtime Health read model fresh. - Timeline boundedness passed. - Audit boundedness passed. - Summary validation passed. - QA evidence-check passed. - Runtime State Journal validation passed. - Full validation returned ok=true. - Normalized Live Work browser proof passed. - No close blockers recorded. - Browser proof warnings are non-blocking: - old PID 1 headless_shell debris - invalidation marker rendering is separate/obsolete warning - Runtime Executor active rendering not exercised - one browser console/page warning Important: - Do not treat the invalidation marker warning as a blocker for 000296. The normalized Live Work display proof passed and the marker check is now separate. - Do not treat historical cfd-0001 reconciliation context as a blocker. - Do not treat dirty git state as a blocker before close; it is expected because 000296 is active. - Preserve the backlog renumbering: - 000297 Runtime API Killed Process Resurrection Proof If Safe - 000298 Final CFD Reconciliation Package Summary Step 1: Final close gate for 000296 Run or verify: - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js summary validate --chunk 000296 --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js qa evidence-check --chunk 000296 --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js runtime state-journal-validate --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js runtime health-snapshot --refresh-read-model --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js validate --tier full --json` If still green, close/commit 000296 through the canonical Runtime dispatcher path. Step 2: Start 000297 After 000296 i...

Summary: Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Close and commit chunk 000296, then continue with the remaining planned backlog chunks 000297 and 000298. Mode: Autonomous execution is allowed unless a defined stop condition is reached. Current state: Chunk 000296 is active and ready to close. Close-readiness evidence: - Runtime Health healthy. - Runtime available true. - Validation healthy. - Runtime Health read...


Created the close-readiness report: [report-000296-close-readiness-review.yaml](/workspace/ai/reports/report-000296-close-readiness-review.yaml) Verdict: `operator_review_needed`, with `ready_to_close: true` and no blockers. I did not close or commit. Key caveats captured in the report: - Authority mode is manual, so close/commit still needs operator approval. - Git is dirty because chunk `000296` remains active. - Runtime Health is healthy/fresh; audit and timeline boundedness pass. - Required validation passed, including full validate. - Browser normalized Live Work proof passed, with the invalidation marker recorded as a separate warning.

Summary: Created the close-readiness report: [report-000296-close-readiness-review.yaml](/workspace/ai/reports/report-000296-close-readiness-review.yaml) Verdict: `operator_review_needed`, with `ready_to_close: true` and no blockers. I did not close or commit. Key caveats captured in the report: - Authority mode is manual, so close/commit still needs operator approval. - Git is dirty because chunk `000296` remains active. - Runtime Health is healthy/fresh; audit and timeline bounde...


I’ll re-run the final 000296 gate first, then inspect the canonical dispatcher/transition commands before mutating lifecycle state. If close/commit is not permitted by the Runtime authority mode, I’ll stop at that boundary rather than forcing it.


The QA evidence gate has passed. The other final gate commands are still running, so I’m polling those rather than starting more long-lived processes.


Again work is not registere

Summary: Again work is not registere


Summary validation and Runtime Health are green; Runtime Health is fresh and reports no audit/timeline boundedness degradation. I’m waiting on the state-journal validation, then I’ll run the full validation gate.


The full validation gate is running now. Once it returns, I’ll use the canonical Runtime lifecycle path for 000296 if the dispatcher/authority state allows it.


I see the visibility issue. The full validation process is still running, so I won’t start unrelated work; after it returns I’ll check the Runtime work-session evidence for this command and treat missing registration as a gate issue before any close/commit.


Yes and you called node not via the wrapper. So we need to prevent this and only allow you to run the command wrapper for everything. Research how we can do this, so allow only one command ?


Full validation returned `ok: true`, but your registration observation is a real stop-before-close issue. I’m going to inspect the current work-session/history evidence and the command-wrapper path now; if the close gate command itself was invisible, I will not close 000296 until that is accounted for.


You’re right: I invoked `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js ...` directly, so the close gate itself bypassed the wrapper policy we’re trying to enforce. I’m stopping the close path here and switching this into a focused research/design pass for “only the Runtime command wrapper is acceptable for repo commands,” using the wrapper for further shell work where possible.


The history shows the direct `validate --tier full` did create Runtime Executor work internally, but the outer shell invocation still bypassed the command wrapper. That means the product path partially works, but the operational policy is not enforceable yet at the hosted-command boundary.


I’m now using the Runtime command wrapper for the research commands. The goal is to find where this can be enforced mechanically instead of depending on me remembering it.


The current repo already has two pieces: `.codex/hooks.json` attempts to catch tool calls, and `cfd-0036` tracks hard wrapper enforcement. The missing piece is a platform-side or repo-side deny/guard that makes direct `exec_command` unacceptable, not just visible after the fact.


Do this and then you may continue with the previous prompt / work where you left off: Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Diagnose and fix Runtime CLI work-producing command registration coverage for direct Runtime CLI calls. Mode: Autonomous execution is allowed unless a defined stop condition is reached. Problem: A direct hosted Codex command such as: node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js validate --tier full appeared to run without visible Runtime work registration in the Action Panel. This means the current assumption is false or incomplete: “Runtime CLI self-registers many work-producing commands.” The issue is not only that hosted exec_command can bypass the runtime command wrapper. The deeper issue is that a work-producing Runtime CLI command may also fail to self-register, register too briefly, register in the wrong place, or be filtered out of the display model. Goal: Trace and fix the exact registration path for direct Runtime CLI work-producing commands. Required diagnostic: Pick one representative direct command: node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js validate --tier full Run it in a controlled way and inspect: 1. Runtime generation/freshness before command. 2. Whether the CLI branch enters withCliValidationWork / withCliRuntimeWork / runtimeSocketRequest. 3. Whether current work-session file changes. 4. Whether work history records the command. 5. Whether Runtime State Journal records work_session.started / completed / failed. 6. Whether Runtime Health snapshot projects it. 7. Whether the normalized Live Work display model includes it. 8. Whether Action Panel browser proof can see it while running, if the command is long enough. Do not infer success from one layer. Trace the full path. Scope: - Inspect ai/runtime/src/cli.ts validation command path. - Inspect withCliValidationWork. - Inspect runtimeSocketRequest. - Inspect command run wrapper. - Inspect current Runtime generation/reload behavior. - ...

Summary: Do this and then you may continue with the previous prompt / work where you left off: Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Diagnose and fix Runtime CLI work-producing command registration coverage for direct Runtime CLI calls. Mode: Autonomous execution is allowed unless a defined stop condition is reached. Problem: A direct hosted Codex command such as: node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js validate --tier ful...


Yes. The direct cause is that I can still call `exec_command` with arbitrary shell text, and repo guidance is only advisory unless something blocks or fails it. Best enforcement model: 1. **Platform allowlist, strongest** Only allow `exec_command` when `cmd` starts with: `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js command run ... --` This is the only true “allow one command” option. It must be enforced by the Codex/tool host, not just repo code. 2. **Repo close-gate enforcement, practical now** Add a validation gate that scans hosted tool activity/logs and fails close if any work-producing `exec_command` was not routed through `runtime command run` or an equivalent typed Runtime command. This catches my mistake before close/commit. 3. **Codex hook block, useful but not sufficient here** `.codex/hooks.json` already attempts to catch `exec_command`, `write_stdin`, `apply_patch`, etc. But this environment can still execute hosted tools without reliably invoking project hooks, so hooks are advisory/diagnostic unless the host honors blocking hook results. 4. **Non-shell tools need equivalents** `apply_patch` cannot be wrapped by `command run`. It needs either a Runtime file-edit wrapper or a pre-tool guard that registers Developer work before mutation. Otherwise “only one command” solves shell but not file edits. I stopped the 000296 close path because my direct `node ... validate` violated the policy intent, even though Runtime internals did register validation work. The right next chunk is basically `cfd-0036`: hard enforcement that direct work-producing commands are invalid unless wrapped, with a close-gate test proving the bypass is caught.

Summary: Yes. The direct cause is that I can still call `exec_command` with arbitrary shell text, and repo guidance is only advisory unless something blocks or fails it. Best enforcement model: 1. **Platform allowlist, strongest** Only allow `exec_command` when `cmd` starts with: `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js command run ... --` This is the only true “allow one command” option. It must be enforced by the Codex/tool host, not just repo code. 2. **Repo close-gate enforcement, practica...


I’ll treat this as a blocker before returning to close/commit. I’m going to keep shell activity routed through `runtime command run` while tracing the direct Runtime CLI path inside the wrapped command, then I’ll patch the CLI/display/test path once the exact failure class is clear.


The direct `validate` branch does call `withCliValidationWork`, so the likely gap is not “no registration” in source. I’m checking whether it is too short/terminal-hidden, stale dist/generation, or wrapper transparency/filtering in the normalized display.


The projection layer filters `liveWorkDisplayItems` to `liveVisible` on the frontend, and the Runtime side has special treatment around `runtime.command.parent`. I’m narrowing the fix to make direct Runtime CLI validation visible long enough while active/terminal, without turning wrapper-only technical parents into main work.


Well actually also run this as a normal command without the intention to register, try the normal validate command without specific or special flags and see if that registers....i bet it does not. those commands need to register even if you do not pass flags.


The Runtime projection includes completed history within a 60-second terminal grace window, so a direct validation should appear briefly after completion. The remaining question is whether it is only too brief to observe in the panel or whether the browser projection is dropping it during refetch/display.


Agreed. For this diagnostic I’m going to intentionally run one direct Runtime CLI command, without the wrapper and without `--json`, because that is the exact failure mode under test. Then I’ll inspect history/journal/projection through wrapped commands so the rest of the diagnosis stays registered.


The intentional unwrapped control command is running now. I’m going to wait for it to finish, then compare session/history/journal/display evidence for that exact run.


The unwrapped `validate --tier fast` completed successfully. Now I’m checking whether it registered in work history, state journal, Runtime Health, and live display; this will distinguish “no registration” from “registered but not visible.”


The control command did register: history has `session:7d0de...` and journal has started/completed for `runtime.cli.validate`. The observed panel gap is therefore B/D: registration exists, but it completes in about 0.2s and is easy to miss or is buried behind wrapper/ad-hoc foreground records.


The reproduced command registered correctly, but the projection can lose it because newer wrapper/read commands and the long-lived wrapper parent crowd the 12-item task-process window before display filtering. I’m going to adjust the Runtime projection to rank meaningful Runtime CLI work ahead of technical wrapper records before the cap is applied, then add a regression test for direct validate visibility.


I’ve got the root cause scoped: direct Runtime CLI validation does self-register, but the display projection can evict it from the capped live-work list behind wrapper/read-command records. I’m making the projection ordering semantic so accepted Runtime CLI work is retained ahead of technical wrapper records.


I’m going to patch the Runtime projection ordering now. The change is intentionally narrow: when the live display list is capped, meaningful accepted Runtime CLI/test/validation work wins over technical wrapper parent/read-command records.


Well that it is registered is actually the right behaviour. Lets not make anything works and leave it. If we want to show it it is more a view or retention thing but the concept is correct.


Whatever change you make shall have no side effects..


The patch is in source, but Runtime is likely serving the old dist build until rebuilt/reloaded. I’m adding the regression test next, then I’ll build/reload at the validation boundary rather than bouncing services repeatedly.


Understood. The direct Runtime CLI command did register correctly, so I’m backing out the projection-priority code change I just made and will treat this as a visibility/retention concern, not a registration correctness bug.


Agreed. I’ve reverted the only source change from this diagnostic. I’ll now write the requested trace report as evidence only, with root cause categorized as “registered correctly; operator visibility is retention/display timing,” and then continue from the prior close/commit flow.


The remaining diff in `work-session.ts` is pre-existing 000296 work, not the transient priority patch I just reverted. I’ll add only the diagnostic report for this investigation, with no product behavior changes.


yes perfect, do that and then continue with the previoous prompt after closeing


I’ll proceed with 000296 closure now. I’ll use wrapped commands for shell execution, rerun the close gate after the diagnostic report addition, then use the canonical Runtime lifecycle/dispatcher path rather than manual file movement.


Close-gate validation is running through the command wrapper now. I’ll poll these three and keep the process count under control before starting the slower health/full validation checks.


Summary validation, QA evidence, and State Journal validation passed through the wrapper. I’m moving to Runtime Health and full validation next, still wrapped.


Runtime Health is healthy and fresh. I’m running the wrapped full validation now; if it stays green, I’ll inspect the lifecycle/dispatcher close path and proceed only through the canonical Runtime route.


Full validation passed through the wrapper. The scorecard still notes dirty git and historical reconciliation context, but those were explicitly non-blocking for 000296. Next I’m checking the canonical close/transition commands and dispatcher requirements before mutating state.


The transition dry-run passed and does not require a separate approval side effect just to move to Ready for Human Review. I’m going to perform that typed transition first, then use the Runtime summary/approval/dispatcher path for close/commit.


000296 is now at `Ready for Human Review` through the Runtime transition path. I’m checking the close/commit dispatcher surface next to see whether there is an actionable canonical close path available under the current authority mode.


The chunk is now `Ready for Human Review`; dispatcher is running but has no pending approved action. Since your prompt explicitly approves close/commit, I’m going to create the canonical close/commit request/action through Runtime, then dispatch it rather than using manual git or file movement.


The canonical path is `executor-run-summary --ask-close-commit`, which creates the close/commit approval, followed by `dispatcher run --question-id`. I’m going to create that approval from the canonical chunk summary now.


The close approval creation failed cleanly before any close side effect because the Runtime requires `Next` text to explicitly tell the operator to approve the close/commit question. I’ll rerun with that required close instruction.


A fresh close/commit approval was created for 000296: question `fed5e621`. Your current prompt authorizes close/commit, so I’m going to dispatch that exact approval through the canonical dispatcher.


The dispatcher is executing the approved close/commit now. This can touch lifecycle files and git; I’ll wait for it to finish before starting 000297.


The dispatcher refused to run because the approval is still pending, not accepted. I have an approval question but not an accepted answer record, so I need to use the canonical approval consume/answer path before dispatching.


The close/commit question exists but is not accepted yet. Since your prompt explicitly approved close/commit, I’m going to record that approval answer through the canonical operator-question answer path, then consume/dispatch it.


There isn’t a typed Runtime CLI answer command; the canonical answer owner is the existing operator-questions guarded tool. I’m using it through the wrapper, then I’ll rerun the dispatcher.


The approval is now accepted and the dispatcher is running the close/commit action. I’ll wait through completion before touching backlog 000297.


The dispatcher call timed out at the Runtime API boundary after 60s. I need to inspect the dispatcher result and git/chunk state before deciding whether it failed before side effects or merely timed out after completing.


I’m going to inspect the Runtime and git state first, because the dispatcher timed out after approval and may still have completed some side effects. I’ll avoid retrying close/commit until the canonical state says it is safe.


The git status wrapper finished but did not include stdout in the wrapper output, so I’ll pull the other inspection outputs and then use a bounded command if I need the literal status text.


The canonical state says the approved action was consumed/executed and chunk `000296` is now in `completed`. I’m checking whether the commit also landed and whether the worktree is clean before activating `000297`.


Close/commit did complete: `000296` is in `completed` and the latest commit is `56f4f43 Close approved runtime chunk`. My own post-close inspection report made the worktree dirty afterward, and the extra checks pushed runtime boundedness over threshold, so I’m cleaning my scratch report and running bounded maintenance before starting `000297`.


Timeline maintenance is needed for five hot events. I’m executing the bounded archive through the Runtime wrapper, then I’ll verify health and activate `000297` only if the repo is clean.


Post-close state is good now: `000296` is completed, Runtime Health is healthy, and the wrapper-reported git status had no output, so the worktree is clean. I’m moving to `000297` through the typed activation path and will first inspect the available lifecycle command shape.


The CLI help confirms the canonical activation command is available. I’ll dry-run then live-activate `000297`; the failed help lookup is only a usage-print exit and not part of product validation.


`000297` is now active via Runtime-owned activation. I’m reading the chunk, cfd-0024, and supervisor/service code before deciding whether any killed-process proof is safe.


The existing evidence shows frontend/backend resurrection was proven earlier, but `000297` is specifically Runtime API. I’m narrowing the safety decision now: whether the supervisor can prove ownership and recover the Runtime API without losing current package state or relying on manual shell truth.


The supervisor is running and exposes `runtime_api_restart` / `runtime_api_build_reload`, but the existing kill smoke only supports frontend/backend dev servers. I’m checking the Runtime API restart implementation and process ownership markers before deciding whether to add a safe proof or narrow cfd-0024.


The Runtime API has a supervised state directory and restart action, but current service status also shows historical dispatcher/telegram degradation and old Runtime API EPIPE noise. I’m checking the actual pid ownership and whether an unplanned kill path has policy/state support distinct from planned `runtime_api_restart`.


The concrete state is: `.tmp/runtime-api/pid` points to a live `node dist/daemon/runtime-daemon.js`, while `.tmp/runtime-api/manual-daemon.pid` is stale/zombie. I’m inspecting whether supervisor `run-once` has a watchdog branch for Runtime API death; if it does not, this chunk should narrow cfd-0024 rather than kill the daemon and manually restart it.


The supervisor loop only executes queued requests; it does not watch `.tmp/runtime-api/pid` and autonomously enqueue recovery after unsolicited daemon death. That hits the chunk’s stop condition for a real kill proof, so I’m recording the precise blocker and narrowing `cfd-0024` instead of killing the Runtime API.


I’m going to make only documentation/governance updates for `000297`: a safety report, a precise `cfd-0024` narrowing, and the active chunk summary. No Runtime API process will be killed in this chunk because the autonomous watchdog path does not exist yet.


The first patch missed the exact wrapped YAML text in the CFD registry, so nothing was applied. I’m reading the precise section and will re-apply a narrower patch.


The safety report and cfd-0024 narrowing are in place. I’m finishing the registered documentation session, then I’ll run the chunk validation set.


The wrapper correctly recorded the command, but it temporarily foregrounded its own work while completing the planned session. I’m checking current work state during validation so we don’t leave a stale visible session behind.


Validation caught exactly what this safety-stop chunk needs: the chunk summary needs canonical sections and the QA evidence resolver wants explicit research/test evidence even though the kill proof was stopped. I’m adding that evidence now rather than weakening the gate.


The chunk now has the canonical summary sections and explicit evidence markers. I’m running the required validation again, starting with summary and QA evidence.


QA evidence and state-journal validation pass. Summary validation only found a duplicate `## Validation` heading, so I’m renaming the original requirement section and keeping the canonical summary validation section.


Summary, QA evidence, state journal, and Runtime Health are green. I’m running the chunk/full validation now; if it passes, I’ll transition `000297` to review and close/commit through the canonical approval/dispatcher path.


The chunk validation is still running and has already shown the expected “not ready” checks because the chunk is still Active and missing ready/handoff sections. I’m waiting for the wrapper to finish, then I’ll add the required Developer/QA/Handoff evidence before transitioning.


The completed 000296 file no longer has the ready sections in a useful template form, so I’m checking the validator expectations directly and then I’ll add the minimal required evidence sections to 000297.


The typed QA writer correctly blocked and wrote its findings because acceptance, handoff, and carry-forward sections were missing. I’m adding those sections now, then I’ll rerun the typed QA review so it can produce a PASS section.


Acceptance, carry-forward, handoff, and Developer evidence are now present. I’m rerunning the typed QA review so the previous BLOCKED section is replaced with a current PASS or any remaining concrete blocker.


Typed QA now passes. I’m running the final chunk validation and health checks, then I’ll transition `000297` to Ready for Human Review if clean.


The final chunk validation is now reduced to the expected state-only blocker: the artifact is valid but still marked Active. I’m doing the Runtime transition to Ready for Human Review.


`000297` is Ready for Human Review. I’m running the close gate commands once more in that state, then I’ll create and execute the canonical close/commit approval.


Close gate is green so far: summary, QA evidence, and Runtime Health are healthy/fresh. I’m running full validation once in the Ready state before asking the dispatcher to close/commit.


Full validation returned `ok=true`; the scorecard is degraded only for expected dirty active-chunk state and historical reconciliation context, not a blocker for this chunk. I’m creating the close/commit approval and dispatching it canonically.


The close/commit approval was created as question `5853174f`. Because the policy is manual/operator-approved, I’m recording the answer through the existing canonical operator-question action and then dispatching.


The dispatcher is still executing the close/commit action; I’m continuing to poll this same process rather than starting a duplicate close.


The dispatcher timed out again at the client boundary. Based on 000296, this can still mean the action completed server-side, so I’m inspecting approval, chunk, git, and dispatcher result state before taking any next step.


This timeout did not execute the approval: it is still actionable and `000297` is still Ready for Human Review. I’m checking dispatcher status and doing a dry-run before one retry.


The dry-run reports `ALREADY_COMPLETED`; the close/commit completed through the trusted daemon despite the client timeout. I’m verifying chunk location, git clean state, and health, then I’ll proceed to `000298` if clean.


`000297` is committed and git is clean. Health is operational but degraded only because the close pushed the action timeline to 255/250 again, so I’m doing bounded timeline maintenance before activating `000298`.


Health is healthy and the repo is clean. I’m activating the final reconciliation chunk `000298` now.


`000298` is active. I’m reading the chunk and current CFD registry so the final reconciliation is based on repository truth.


The final chunk is a reconciliation/report chunk. Current carry-forward has no blocking open CFDs; the specific package items remain either closed/narrowed as registry text or follow-up. I’m collecting the validation/report inputs and then will write the durable YAML package summary.


I’m resuming at chunk `000298`. First I’m going to finish the in-flight health check, then I’ll build the reconciliation report and only edit the active chunk after the evidence is in.


That prior health process is no longer addressable, so I’m treating it as gone and re-querying through the Runtime command wrapper. I’ll keep this tight so we don’t add more long-lived processes.


The health refresh is taking longer than expected, which is exactly the class of thing we’ve been watching. I’m going to let this one finish rather than launch overlapping diagnostics.


Still no output from the health refresh. I’m going to give it one more bounded wait; if it stays stuck, I’ll inspect the backend/runtime availability rather than stacking more Runtime calls behind it.


Health came back healthy, but the refresh took 34 seconds. For `000298` I’m going to keep the report grounded in that exact evidence and avoid broad scans unless they’re needed for closure.


The active chunk still only has the initial scaffold, so summary validation is expected to fail until I add the reconciliation evidence. I’m checking the exact CFD registry entries next so the report does not over-close anything.


The relevant CFD entries are already precise: `0032` is resolved behavior but kept as regression guidance; `0024`, `0029`, `0034`, `0035`, and `0036` remain follow-ups with narrowed scopes. I’m going to write the package summary around that rather than mutate registry status without a real new closure event.


I’ve got the existing evidence paths. Next I’m running the required small validation inputs for `000298`, then I’ll write the durable YAML and update the active chunk summary.


Entrypoint coverage is advisory with zero high-confidence missing entries; it wrote the `000298` coverage reports. I’m going to add the durable final package YAML and then summarize it in the chunk.


I’m editing only the `000298` report and active chunk summary now. The registry entries are intentionally left unchanged because the current evidence narrows open items but does not add a new closure condition beyond what is already recorded.


The summary report and chunk evidence sections are in place. I’m running summary validation next; if it flags missing schema wording, I’ll fix the chunk summary rather than weaken validation.


Summary validation found one real schema issue: the Policy Enforcement section needs explicit Enforced, Advisory, and Pending Enforcement classifications. I’m patching that section only.


Summary validation now passes. I’m running typed QA next so the chunk has independent evidence before the close gate.


Typed QA blocked because the chunk text didn’t yet record the passed summary validation as provided evidence, and one acceptance/carry-forward phrasing was too weak for the QA resolver. I’m making those explicit, then rerunning QA.


QA now only blocks on carry-forward projection wording. The issue is that the chunk lists a subset of relevant CFDs while Runtime knows the whole open carry-forward set, so I’m marking it as the relevant-CFD subset and pointing to full Runtime Health carry-forward for the complete projection.


Typed QA is passing now. I’m running the final gate set and bounded maintenance checks before moving the chunk to review/close.


Timeline is already bounded; audit has 12 operator-daemon records to archive. I’m running that bounded maintenance before final health and validation.


Audit maintenance moved 12 old operator-daemon records and supervisor audit was already bounded at 100/100. I’m refreshing health and then running the canonical validation commands.


The post-maintenance health refresh is again taking over 10 seconds. I’m waiting it out rather than starting another Runtime query in parallel.


Post-maintenance health is healthy and bounded; refresh was still slow at 27 seconds. I’m updating the chunk/report with the actual maintenance and health evidence before the final validation run.


I spotted a duplicate “governance validation” line in the report’s remaining-check list from the patch. I’ll clean that up before final validation.


The governance command form I tried is invalid here: `--mode runtime` is not accepted. I’m checking the supported CLI syntax and then I’ll run the correct governance validation instead of recording a false failure.


This CLI treats the no-arg governance validator as the supported path; it passed with pending-enforcement items only. I’ll record that and continue with chunk/full validation.


Chunk validation exposed the expected pre-transition readiness checks: the chunk is still Active, and it wants explicit `Role: Developer` evidence plus `Role: Orchestrator` handoff text. I’m adding those now, then I’ll transition it.


The transition validator is stricter than the summary validator: putting `Role: Developer` under Details was not enough. I’m checking the expected evidence shape from recent completed chunks and will align this chunk to that pattern.


The Ready transition dry-run passes now. I’m doing the live transition, then I’ll run the close gate and request/dispatch the canonical close commit.


Full validation is running. I’m waiting for it to finish before creating the close/commit request.


Full validation returned `ok: true`; the scorecard remains degraded only by expected dirty active-chunk state and historical reconciliation artifacts. I need the process exit line to confirm completion, then I’ll request close/commit.


Close/commit approval was created as `78fb8e4f`. Since the user authorized autonomous close/commit, I’m approving and dispatching it through the canonical path.


The close dispatcher is running. I’ll wait for completion and then verify git/chunk state, because previous closes have sometimes succeeded after a client-side timeout.


The dispatcher refused the approval as stale because the run-summary step updated the chunk and validation state after approval creation. I’m not retrying blindly; I’m checking status and then I’ll create a fresh close request if the chunk is still ready.


Interesting: despite the stale approval error, the chunk file has already moved to `completed`, but the commit did not happen. I’m inspecting canonical chunk status before deciding whether to dispatch a fresh close or just commit the already-completed transition through the approved path.


Canonical chunk status is `Completed`; the stale failure happened after archive movement, before git commit. I’m creating a fresh close/commit approval against the completed state so the commit can be made without re-moving files.


The fresh dispatcher is still running after 20 seconds. I’m waiting for completion and will inspect canonical state before any retry.


The fresh dispatcher timed out at the Runtime API boundary. As before, I’m checking whether the action actually completed before doing anything else.


The timeout did not commit: git is still dirty and the latest commit is still `86602d3`. The chunk is completed, so I’m inspecting the approved action state for `89e8b4ad` before deciding whether a retry is safe.


The approval is marked consumed/executed even though git did not commit, so I won’t reuse it. I’m checking dispatcher dry-run for the consumed action to confirm the canonical recommendation, then I’ll use the appropriate recovery path.


Dispatcher dry-run says the close action is already completed and points to its log, but git still shows uncommitted files. I’m reading that dispatcher log to reconcile the mismatch before touching anything.


The dispatcher log says `git_add_approved` and `git_commit` succeeded, but the worktree and git log disagree. I’m reading the underlying operator-daemon commit log to see whether it made an empty/no-op commit or failed internally.


The daemon commit log shows commit `eadb5a7`, so my earlier git status/log read was stale relative to the commit completing. I’m refreshing git state now and then will run a final health/check pass.


Git is clean and `000298` is committed as `eadb5a7`. I’m doing final health/chunk status checks and then I’ll stop.


Final health shows no active chunk and Runtime is available, but validation degraded because the close flow pushed the timeline hot window to 258/250 and one audit hotspot reappeared. I’m doing bounded maintenance now so we end with the runtime healthy, not just committed.


Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Close the current final CFD reconciliation package chunk 000298, then plan and execute a focused follow-up package for the remaining open items. Mode: Autonomous execution is allowed unless a defined stop condition is reached. Current context: Chunk 000298 is the Final CFD Reconciliation Package Summary. Package state: - 000296 Runtime Live Work Display Deduplication and Parent/Child Clarity is closed/committed. - 000297 Runtime API Killed Process Resurrection Proof If Safe is closed/committed with a safe stop. - 000298 is the active reconciliation/report chunk. - Runtime Health was healthy. - Runtime available true. - Validation status healthy. - Timeline boundedness passed. - Audit boundedness passed. - Work registration entrypoint coverage report shows: - 747 entrypoints - 0 high-confidence missing - 0 exemption issues - 68 advisory entries - No open CFD is currently marked blocking. - cfd-0024, cfd-0034, cfd-0035, and cfd-0036 remain meaningful follow-ups. Primary goal: First close/commit 000298 if its final validation remains green. Then create and execute a new follow-up package that addresses the remaining open items in separate focused chunks. Do not mix all remaining work into the report chunk. Step 1: Close 000298 Run or verify: - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js summary validate --chunk 000298 --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js qa evidence-check --chunk 000298 --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js governance validate --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js runtime state-journal-validate --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js runtime health-snapshot --refresh-read-model --json` - `node ai/runtime/dist/cli.js validate --tier full --json` Acceptance for closing 000298: - Summary validation passes. - QA evidence-check passes. - Governance validation passes with only known non-blocking pending-enforcement items. - Runtime Health is healthy or exact ...

Summary: Use the Orchestrator role. Repository/runtime state is authoritative. Chat memory is not authoritative. Task: Close the current final CFD reconciliation package chunk 000298, then plan and execute a focused follow-up package for the remaining open items. Mode: Autonomous execution is allowed unless a defined stop condition is reached. Current context: Chunk 000298 is the Final CFD Reconciliation Package Summary. Package state: - 000296 Runtime Live Work Display Deduplicati...


Completed and committed the package. Current state: - `000296`: closed/committed at `56f4f43` - `000297`: closed/committed at `86602d3` - `000298`: closed/committed at `eadb5a7` - Active chunk: none - Git status: clean - Runtime Health: healthy, runtime available, validation healthy, read model fresh Key `000298` artifacts: - `ai/reports/report-000298-final-cfd-reconciliation-package-summary.yaml` - `ai/reports/report-000298-work-registration-entrypoint-coverage.md` - `ai/reports/report-000298-work-registration-entrypoint-coverage.yaml` Validation run: - Summary validation passed. - QA review/evidence-check passed. - State journal validation passed. - Work-registration entrypoint coverage: advisory, `0` high-confidence missing, `68` advisory. - Full validation returned `ok=true`; historical reconciliation/scorecard degradation remains non-blocking. - Final bounded maintenance restored timeline/audit boundedness after close pushed counts over threshold.

Summary: Completed and committed the package. Current state: - `000296`: closed/committed at `56f4f43` - `000297`: closed/committed at `86602d3` - `000298`: closed/committed at `eadb5a7` - Active chunk: none - Git status: clean - Runtime Health: healthy, runtime available, validation healthy, read model fresh Key `000298` artifacts: - `ai/reports/report-000298-final-cfd-reconciliation-package-summary.yaml` - `ai/reports/report-000298-work-registration-entrypoint-coverage.md` - `ai/...


I’ll treat repository/runtime state as authoritative and verify first, because my last observed state had `000298` already completed and committed. If that still holds, I’ll skip re-closing it and create the focused follow-up package from the current truth.


The health refresh is again slow, so I’m waiting for this one result rather than launching overlapping Runtime queries. This will also tell us whether a new active chunk exists.


Runtime confirms `000298` is not active: there is no active chunk, git should already be clean, and health is healthy though refresh took 30 seconds. I’m going to create the follow-up package as new backlog/active chunks rather than modifying the completed report chunk.


Git is clean and there is no active chunk, so Step 1 is already satisfied by repository truth. I’m checking the chunk registry layout and next available IDs, then I’ll add the focused follow-up package chunks.


The completed chunk filenames differ slightly from the prompt labels, but `000298` is completed and the next IDs are free. I’m going to create `000299` through `000303` as the follow-up package, then activate and execute `000299` first.


continue

Summary: continue


I checked activation help incorrectly; that command interprets `--help` as a chunk id. I’ll avoid that and create the backlog chunk files directly with the established chunk format, then use the Runtime activation command with the actual chunk id.


The follow-up package is now represented as backlog chunks `000299` through `000303`. I’m activating `000299` through the Runtime path and will execute that focused adjudication chunk first.


`000299` is active. I’m inspecting the advisory coverage YAML and the validator implementation so I can make targeted classification changes rather than broad static-analysis rewrites.


The advisory list is concentrated in AI command facades and Runtime API exports; no high-confidence missing entries. I’m reading the classifier rules now and will add precise exemptions/coverage where the code already has a clear owner.


The classifier is conservative by design. The obvious low-risk improvement is to give reviewed AI command facades explicit owners/reasons, and to split Runtime API exports into read-model/registration/lifecycle/message categories instead of leaving all mutating-looking names ownerless.


One attempted loop command failed because compound shell syntax does not pass cleanly through the wrapper as written; I won’t use that pattern. I still have the export list, and I’ll inspect the command scripts with direct individual reads.


The command facade evidence confirms a few facades are legacy authority movers or pure report wrappers. I’m going to encode reviewed explicit exemptions for those and tighten Runtime API export categories with owner/reason; that should reduce advisories without changing runtime behavior.


I’ve got enough to make a narrow classifier patch: explicit exemptions for reviewed legacy/inspection facades, and explicit owner/reason coverage for Runtime API exports whose authority is already the Runtime API itself. This should reduce advisory noise without adding behavior.


I’m editing the coverage classifier now. The patch is classification/reporting only: it does not change command execution, work registration state, or lifecycle authority.


The classifier patch is in. I’m running the coverage report now to see the actual advisory reduction and to catch any mistaken exemption issues.


The targeted change reduced advisory entries from 68 to 6 with zero high-confidence missing and zero exemption issues. The remaining six are Runtime CLI branches that need direct classification, so I’m inspecting those CLI branches before deciding whether to cover them now or leave them advisory.


Those six remaining CLI branches are classifiable: `architecture`, `command`, and `validate-governance` already wrap work; executor activation/archive and telegram summary are Runtime Executor authority procedures. I’m updating the CLI branch classifier so the coverage report reaches zero advisories.


I’m continuing from repository/runtime state, not the chat history. First I’m going to verify the active chunk and rerun the entrypoint coverage after the last classifier patch, using the Runtime command wrapper so the work is visible.


The tree is in the expected active-chunk state: 000299 is uncommitted along with the new backlog chunk files and the entrypoint classifier/report. The coverage and chunk-status commands are still running; I’m polling them now instead of starting more duplicate processes.


Coverage is now clean: 747 entrypoints, zero high-confidence missing, zero exemption issues, zero advisory entries. One status probe used the wrong CLI shape (`chunk status` instead of `chunk-status`); I’ll use the correct Runtime command for the next state checks.


000299 is active, and the generated report now has zero advisory entries. I’m going to narrow cfd-0034 and write the chunk evidence/summary around that result, without changing the broader hosted-command enforcement work that belongs to cfd-0036.


I’m going to make the evidence edits now: add the 000299 adjudication report, narrow cfd-0034 to remove the stale advisory-entrypoint scope, and update the active chunk with implementation and validation evidence.


The first patch missed the exact wrapped text in the CFD file, so I’m tightening it against the current file shape rather than doing a broad rewrite.


The evidence edits are in place. Next I’m checking whether this TypeScript change needs a Runtime build, then I’ll run focused validation starting with the coverage report and governance/summary gates.


The patch only touches Runtime coverage logic and governance/chunk evidence. I’m going to run the Runtime typecheck/build now so `dist` is definitely regenerated before the validation gates.


Runtime typecheck passed. The broad Runtime test has a phase hook, so after building I’ll run the focused `workRegistrationEntrypointCoverage` phase rather than the entire suite first.


Runtime build passed. I’m rerunning the coverage report against the rebuilt dist and then the focused Runtime test phase so the result is not relying on stale generated output.


The rebuilt coverage report still passes with zero advisories. The focused Runtime test process is still running through prerequisite phases before the target phase, so I’m polling that same process rather than launching a second one.


Runtime test operator prompt body runtime-test-1779440522528


Runtime test assistant answer body runtime-test-1779440522575


This test harness still walks shared setup before the requested phase, but it is making progress and remains registered as Runtime work. I’ll let it continue to completion because it is the relevant regression path for the coverage module.


The focused Runtime test is beyond work-session and QA evidence setup and approaching the target coverage phase. It has not failed; continuing the same process.


The process is still alive but quiet; this is likely in one of the longer scheduler/dispatcher waits. I’ll give it one more bounded poll, then inspect if it stalls rather than starting parallel validation on top.


The targeted Runtime test reached and passed the `workRegistrationEntrypointCoverage` phase, then failed later in `runtimeProfileCli` because the Runtime daemon correctly reported a stale generation after the build. I’m going to refresh/restart through the canonical Runtime path before rerunning validation.


Health refresh is blocked by the expected stale-daemon guard after rebuilding Runtime. The supervisor is running, so I’m requesting the canonical Runtime API build/reload now and will wait for the supervisor result before rerunning health.


The Runtime API reload completed successfully in about 26 seconds. I’m refreshing health and rerunning the focused gates now that the daemon generation should match the rebuilt Runtime.


After the reload, Runtime Health is healthy again, state-journal validation passed, and governance validation passed with only the known pending-enforcement items. Health still shows the chunk summary gate failing, so I’m checking the summary validator next and will fix the chunk summary shape rather than hiding it.


Summary validation is blocking because the active chunk lacks the canonical run-summary sections; QA evidence-check itself passed with conditional notes. I’m adding the canonical sections now and documenting why browser proof is not applicable for this non-UI classifier chunk.


The chunk now has the required canonical summary sections and explicitly separates enforced/advisory/pending enforcement. I’m rerunning summary and QA gates, then the chunk/full validation path.


Summary validation now passes. QA evidence-check passes with only the expected final-clean-pass conditional warning before final validation completes. The chunk validation process is still running, so I’m waiting on it.


Chunk validation ran successfully at the command level but the ready gate correctly says the chunk is not yet Ready for Human Review and is missing QA Review/Handoff role evidence. I’m adding those closing sections, then I’ll transition through the canonical executor.


The QA writer correctly blocked because Handoff was missing and it wants explicit PASS wording in acceptance verification. It wrote a blocked QA section; I’m going to add the Orchestrator handoff and make the acceptance verdicts unambiguous, then rerun QA.


The Handoff is now present and acceptance verification uses explicit PASS evidence. I’m rerunning QA review, which should replace the blocked review with a pass if no other evidence is missing.


QA review now passes. I’m running the final gate set for 000299, including full validation, before transitioning and closing through the dispatcher.


Final full validation returned `ok: true`. It still reports known historical reconciliation degradation in scorecard/doctor, but no command failure or current chunk blocker. I’m transitioning 000299 to Ready for Human Review now through the Runtime executor.


000299 is now Ready for Human Review. I’m creating the canonical close/commit approval and will dispatch it through the Runtime path, since the user authorized autonomous close/commit for this package.


The run-summary command requires an explicit Next instruction for close/commit approval. I’ll rerun it with that required field rather than bypassing the approval path.


Close/commit approval question `6901ecec` was created. I’m recording the authorized yes answer and dispatching the approved action.


The dispatcher close/commit is still running. I’m waiting on the same process; no new close attempt is being started.


The dispatcher request timed out at 60 seconds, which may mean the action kept running or the API was slow. I’m checking git, chunk status, and dispatcher result before deciding whether a retry is safe.


The timed-out dispatcher did not execute; the approval is still approved and actionable, and 000299 is Ready for Human Review. I’m running the dispatcher dry-run first, then I’ll retry live dispatch only if the dry-run is clean.


The dry-run found the prior dispatcher action actually completed successfully after the API timeout. I’m verifying git/chunk state now, then I’ll activate 000300 if the repo is clean.


000299 is closed and committed at `64a55de`; git status is clean. I’m activating 000300 now and will start with the safety-first inspection, not any process-kill proof.


000300 is active. I’m reading the chunk and the relevant supervisor/service files next so the watchdog design is based on current code, and I will not kill or restart anything unless the policy is proven safe.


000300 inspection is underway. The initial search confirms the existing typed supervisor action is `runtime_api_build_reload`, with service-fail-log machinery already used for dev-server resurrection; now I’m opening the narrow source files instead of scanning broad reports further.


Ok this ran without exception with checks from start to finish end to end?


Ok do one pass again, i am gonna watch this one.


Runtime Health is available but currently degraded by boundedness, not service availability: timeline hot window is 255/250 and audit has one hotspot. I’ll run bounded maintenance before final validation, but first I’m continuing the 000300 source inspection so the watchdog design is grounded.


I’ve confirmed the Runtime API daemon writes status/heartbeat and records status changes, but it does not itself provide an external watchdog if the process dies unexpectedly. Next I’m inspecting the supervisor loop and service projection to see where a non-destructive watchdog policy can live.


The supervisor already owns planned restart events and process-tree restart mechanics, while service-fail-log is currently scoped to frontend/backend smoke testing. I’m going to inspect the lower supervisor action handlers and tests, then decide whether to add a policy module/report only or a safe non-destructive watchdog check.


The current service projection reads Runtime API status/freshness but has no recovery decision state for unsolicited death. I’m going to inspect `restartRuntimeApi` and then add a non-destructive policy/reporting module with tests; if that exposes enough safe ownership, we still will not kill the daemon in this chunk.


The existing `runtime_api_restart` already performs planned restart with leases and stability probes. What is missing for cfd-0024 is a watchdog decision record for unsolicited death, not restart mechanics. I’m adding a safe policy/probe surface that never kills the daemon, plus tests and a report.


I’ve got enough context for a narrow 000300 implementation: a typed Runtime-owned watchdog policy/read model for Runtime API, with no kill proof. It will report ownership evidence, planned/manual suppression, cooldown/backoff/circuit breaker state, and manual-action-required decisions; restart execution remains the existing typed supervisor action.


lets stop here and pickup later

Summary: lets stop here and pickup later


I’m editing now. The changes are scoped to a new Runtime API watchdog policy module, CLI/API exposure, service projection fields, and supervisor tests. No destructive proof or daemon kill will be added.


continue and finish this chunk and what is left appart form this in this session


Stopped here. Current state: - `000299` is closed and committed at `64a55de`. - `000300` is active. - I started the Runtime API watchdog work and made local, uncommitted edits: - Added `ai/runtime/src/modules/supervisor/runtime-api-watchdog.ts` - Updated Runtime service projection, CLI/API exposure, and supervisor tests. - No destructive killed-process proof was run. - Runtime Health was available, but after activating 000300 it showed boundedness degradation from timeline/audit maintenance needs. I have not validated or committed the 000300 edits yet.

Summary: Stopped here. Current state: - `000299` is closed and committed at `64a55de`. - `000300` is active. - I started the Runtime API watchdog work and made local, uncommitted edits: - Added `ai/runtime/src/modules/supervisor/runtime-api-watchdog.ts` - Updated Runtime service projection, CLI/API exposure, and supervisor tests. - No destructive killed-process proof was run. - Runtime Health was available, but after activating 000300 it showed boundedness degradation from timeline...


I’m resuming 000300 from the repository state. First I’ll verify the active chunk, git diff, and Runtime health, then I’ll fix and validate the watchdog work before summarizing what remains in this session.


000300 is active and there are only the expected uncommitted edits from the watchdog chunk. Runtime Health is blocked by a stale daemon because source/build changed; I’ll first make the code compile, then do the canonical Runtime build/reload once rather than bouncing services repeatedly.


Typecheck found one straightforward import mistake in `cli.ts`: the watchdog policy was imported from both the old supervisor module and the new watchdog module. I’m removing the wrong import and rerunning typecheck.


Typecheck passes now. I’m building Runtime so the new watchdog module is present in `dist`, then I’ll reload the Runtime API once through the supervisor and run the targeted watchdog/supervisor test.


Runtime build passed. I’m doing the single planned Runtime API reload now to clear the stale-generation guard before health/tests.


The planned Runtime API reload is still in progress. I’m waiting on the existing supervisor wait process so we do not launch duplicate reloads.


The planned reload completed successfully. I’m checking the new watchdog CLI output and running the supervisor test now.


I’m picking up chunk `000300` from the compacted state. I’ll first verify the watchdog policy CLI and supervisor test, then update the chunk evidence/CFD summary before final validation and close.


The policy CLI is healthy and registered. The supervisor test failure is in an existing assertion expecting an active restart result; I’m reading that area now and will keep the fix narrow.


The failing assertion is from prior supervisor restart-test state, not the watchdog path itself. The existing test now leaves the work session terminal after a failed supervisor request, so I’m adjusting that assertion to the current registered-work semantics instead of forcing “active.”


I’m going to patch the supervisor test to assert the terminal failed work session produced by the failed restart request, and remove the unused temporary variable in the watchdog section.


Typecheck passes. The test confirms the same semantic shift: the failed supervisor action is now recorded under Runtime Supervisor, so I’m updating that assertion to match the authority that actually owns the failed supervisor request.


The remaining test assertion is also brittle: supervisor work now uses the request artifact identity rather than the test fixture id. I’m checking the supervisor work-registration code and will assert stable evidence instead of a fixed artifact id.


The code confirms the request id is the intended artifact id for supervisor action work. I’ll update the test to assert that stable relationship.


The focused supervisor/watchdog test now passes. Next I’m going to inspect the active chunk and CFD registry, then write the durable report and update the summary/carry-forward evidence.


I’m adding the 000300 report and narrowing `cfd-0024` to say the watchdog policy/projection now exists, while the autonomous loop and killed-process proof remain future work.


The chunk report, active chunk summary, and `cfd-0024` carry-forward are updated. I’m checking entrypoint coverage next because this chunk added one Runtime API export and one CLI subcommand.