Outcome: none established

No consequential defect attributable to the investigated execution failures was established. The evidence shows recovery of the failed source-discovery paths, correction of the quotation ambiguity, and successful repetition of checks invoked with incorrect paths. A genuinely unsupported comparison value was also caught and removed before acceptance; its connection to an execution failure is not established.

  • Run-id: AAS-2026-10-20-openresearch-62725ad1cd0a-01
  • Method-commit: 005a3f2dd621cb140a0cf90f4e48d9cd5ca1ffad
  • Source-revision: 2c45ff3183b494aac4001bd44eefbe57a3c249ae

Evidence locator convention

Below, artifact/… is relative to the supplied run directory. Trace references use the launch-ID prefix followed by physical lines in calls/launches/<full-launch-id>/stdout.log. Source paths are relative to the supplied source root. Short tool-call IDs identify the corresponding execution, without counting repeated stream representations as separate executions.

Residual findings

None established.

The strongest suspected consequences concerned incomplete inspection of chat admission and wake-ups, permission/attribution hooks, chart validation, and independent-chat context. Later calls acquired the relevant evidence through corrected paths or equivalent reads. The accepted synthesis also limits these mechanisms rather than claiming universal enforcement or successful operation.

Two inventory omissions—native-catalog screening and machine-wide compute guidance—remain explicitly disclosed in the accepted analysis (artifact/synthesis.md:48,64–65). The available process evidence does not establish that the investigated failures caused those omissions. Their existence alone does not meet this audit’s failure-linked residual threshold.

Incident dispositions

1. Runtime source-path failures — recovered

Incidents: runtime launch 3b6f150f…, calls call_kLZdTPupjEF15P2iuqZOujJp and call_OOmvrYaJ6HuSRlYTy8Z9MmB6; trace lines 561–565 and 635–639.

The first command searched nonexistent src/local/chat/host.rs. Ripgrep nevertheless searched the other supplied files, but its exit 2 prevented the subsequent wc. The second command listed the actual chat directory, then failed on nonexistent src/commands/exp; its &&-joined function search did not execute.

These operations were intended to locate chat admission, harness execution, permission and experiment-dispatch code. Their material dependencies include the accepted account that ChatHost starts or durably queues messages and dispatches a harness (artifact/synthesis.md:18), and the experiment-submission account at line 26.

Recovery was substantive, not just another successful command:

  • At trace 712–716, call_51hzuyROX8ygeDqMzqm9jH95 counted and searched the actual src/local/chat/mod.rs and src/commands/exp.rs.
  • Reads started at 732–734, with results at 735–737, acquired experiment dispatch, the harness interface and send_message.
  • Further reads at 867–870 acquired chat execution and local-plane launch sections.

The skipped size check has no surviving analytical consequence. The corrected searches and reads fulfilled the source-location and mechanism-inspection purpose.

2. Runtime wake-up search hidden by pipeline success — recovered

Additional observed error: runtime trace 1011–1015, call_MaMe4l6Zm40dJ7tWiMfjynCR.

This shell invocation returned success despite:

rg: src/local/run_wake*: No such file or directory (os error 2)

The failed search was piped to head; the successful pipeline status allowed later Codex and file-list operations to continue. This is an actual masked diagnostic, not merely a risky shell pattern.

The missing operation could have undermined the distinction between completion notification and evidence-bearing results. Accepted wording says a subscription-selected hidden turn receives status text and instructions to inspect evidence, not full measurements (artifact/synthesis.md:32).

Recovery is visible at 1342–1346: a corrected search located run_wakeup_text, process_run_wakeups and watch_runs in src/local/chat/mod.rs. The ensuing read, call_WIjEO6CgyRKEMhlorMqSklPr, started at 1365 and returned at 1372, covering source lines 8215–8397. It exposed the status-only message, idle-session claim, delivery disposition and claim-release paths. That evidence supports the accepted qualification and disposes of the suspected missing-mechanism consequence.

3. Epistemic MCP/chart discovery failure — recovered

Incident: epistemic launch 7e120c51…, trace 1376–1380, call_b5vnRtmTsoOoK1Vivo4PBiw5.

The command’s inventory actually identified src/commands/mcp_gate.rs, but the following search used nonexistent src/local/harness/mcp_gate.rs. Exit 2 skipped the chart-helper and project-field searches.

The corrected command at 1502–1506, call_2yO8oOzNmbMAaK7z17rC5fxw, successfully searched the actual MCP file and chart helper. A subsequent full helper read started at 1530 and returned at 1535.

The accepted passage says the helper enforces numerical/schema conditions before its own write, while fabricated finite values and alternate writers remain outside that guarantee (artifact/synthesis.md:38; artifact/epistemic.md:227–243). Direct inspection confirms the relevant order: validate_views performs coordinate, interval and diagram checks, and render_chart calls it before serialization and writing (agent-skills/orx-figures/assets/orx_chart.py:10–57).

The failed path did not leave chart validation unsupported.

4. Epistemic no-match search and skipped attribution reads — recovered, with an expected-nonzero component

Incident: the same corrected command, trace 1502–1506.

The complete original result—not just the truncated scanner tail—shows successful MCP and chart output, followed by exit 1 without an error diagnostic. The description|archived search in src/commands/project.rs produced no match. Because it was joined with &&, it prevented the final search of src/invocation.rs and src/commands/invocation_gate.rs.

The no-match exit is not itself a tool malfunction; the skipped independent work still required examination. Reads immediately afterward acquired both invocation files:

  • call_mCNYoWAY6kZziJiauv8TI9JL: start 1531, result 1539.
  • call_bV5XEeYtff1y5CZVJCXy13gF: start 1532, result 1536.

Description/archive conclusions were supported through the experiment dispatch, local-plane and experiment implementation reads already performed at 970–975 and 1142–1143, rather than relying on matching fields in the project command. The accepted coverage table names those actual sources and separately leaves detailed project editing unassessed (artifact/epistemic.md:23,27).

5. Epistemic quotation ambiguity — recovered

Incident: trace 15086–15089, call_tGiGrWMRDaGZE1Z3UYrNpUqi.

The validator rejected a three-line 404-handling quotation because it occurred three times in src/client.rs. No source acquisition failed; the defect was ambiguous attribution.

At 15239, call_xL1wXBBeDnqfSc2tQ7I1U61f restricted the citation to src/client.rs:915–917. Those accepted bytes remain at artifact/epistemic.md:348–351.

Direct inspection of src/client.rs:902–927 places that occurrence inside fetch_paper_markdown, whose contract explicitly returns None for an unavailable markdown document. Thus the repair chose the context relevant to the literature-import claim, rather than merely making an unrelated duplicate pass. The underlying bounded claim did not need weakening.

6. Incorrect validation paths — recovered

Two scanner incidents prevented checks from running:

  • Epistemic trace 15408–15411, call_spJ7dIslfj4TtpLuYsvjqVzr: incorrect artifact-directory path; the validator could not find ARTIFACT.yaml.
  • Initial memory-profile launch f6cf6290…, trace 6688–6691, call_EMxmK8DfSwFNbBSg5gcCzsuf: incorrect profile-file path.

Correct-path repetitions returned passing content-check results:

  • Epistemic: 15608–15611, call_QMzZdDe6BrPmbL0p1JlNp9IR.
  • Memory profile: 6890–6893, call_3gA0zx3KG49QkTTmGM29XFMp, followed by another check at 7697–7700 after a further content correction.

These results establish recovery of the omitted checks, not semantic correctness by themselves. Semantic recovery was assessed separately against the accepted quotation and profile corrections.

7. Memory delegation-path failure — recovered

Incident: memory launch 08bcfe53…, trace 1517–1521, call_OmaTjbf8dtPjfmizIwj3SB7I.

Searches of chat and store functions succeeded. Searching nonexistent agent-skills/orx-delegation/SKILL.md then failed, skipping the final hooks/memory search.

At 1583–1587, call_960wssgxHIxZ1Iq0l0YxwC0L listed the skills and repeated that final search. The corrected skill read started at 1609 and returned at 1614.

The accepted synthesis distinguishes independent chats from side chats and refuses a universal native-subagent isolation claim (artifact/synthesis.md:46,62). The actual agent-skills/orx-agent-delegation/SKILL.md:8–11,23–27 supports the narrower independent-chat contract: no inherited conversation/settings and no automatic result return. Recovery therefore supplied the evidence that the failed lookup was intended to find.

8. Memory pending-validation marker — recovered

Incident: memory trace 11100–11103, call_9pdEJfWD8xWoHF3UwGUzlMCI.

Validation failed because the report retained Validation: pending. The marker was replaced at 11232, and the repeated check passed at 11429–11432. The accepted statement explicitly limits the check to form, relations and quotation occurrence, not analytical correctness (artifact/memory.md:354). No consequential substantive claim depended on the rejected marker.

9. Unsupported profile ranking value — recovered; not established as failure-caused

The first profile verifier identified a real comparison defect: archive visibility and parent organization did not establish a retained-memory ranking mechanism (f971dfa4…/outputs/verification.md:26–28).

The second profile author removed the value at trace 2469 in launch b147058b…. Accepted artifact/memory-profile.md:468–475 now retains the unit as not-determinable with no findings; lines 507 and 1130 also reject the ranking inference. The final verifier expressly discharged the blocker (artifact/profile-verification.md:25).

This successful correction matters: the first passing validation did not establish comparison validity, but the unsupported extracted value also did not survive acceptance. No positive evidence links its original inclusion to a failed execution.

Coverage and limits

  • Triaged all nine scanner incidents, across runtime, epistemic, memory and the initial memory-profile launch.
  • Followed their recovery calls and sampled successful shell results on those chains, discovering the additional masked runtime wake-up error.
  • Examined the profile correction and both profile-verification attempts, plus relevant accepted report- and synthesis-verification passages.
  • Read the accepted synthesis completely; inspected targeted accepted analyst passages and profile units. This was not a complete review of every profile axis or source mechanism.
  • The other launches’ full traces, receipt contents, complete prompts/method contracts and unrelated source paths were not exhaustively inspected. No method-compliance finding is made.
  • Initial broad trace extracts exceeded the output limit; the decisive failure diagnostics and recovery records were subsequently recovered through bounded parsing. No disposition above relies solely on an omitted scanner tail.
  • No missing critical log was encountered. Uninspected logs are not evidence of zero failures.
  • No target execution, validation rerun, worker launch, network access or file mutation was performed.

Unresolved consequential concerns from the investigated incidents: none identified. This outcome is not a correctness certificate for the accepted analysis.