<!-- entire-trail-link-start -->
https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/103/changes/paperclip/103
<!-- entire-trail-link-end -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages real agent work.
> - Controlled Runner evaluations record model spend and traces.
> - A trusted build creates one portable controller with a complete file
inventory.
> - GitHub artifact upload omitted one hidden dependency metadata file.
> - The next job correctly refused the incomplete inventory before any
paid worker started.
> - This change preserves all inventoried bytes without relaxing
verification.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #17889, #17929.
**What happened?**
[Run
40585138437](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40585138437)
failed at copied controller verification. Its artifact contains 294
files; its signed inventory expects 295. The only missing file is
`server/node_modules/protobufjs/node_modules/@protobufjs/pool/.npmignore`.
No extra files exist. Every paid worker was skipped and no model request
ran.
**Expected behavior**
The trusted controller artifact preserves its full inventory, including
hidden package metadata. The strict verifier rejects any actual change
or missing file.
**Steps to reproduce**
Build the portable runtime, upload the directory with the action's
default hidden-file exclusion, then verify the downloaded artifact
against the original receipt.
## What Changed
- Enable hidden files only on the fresh trusted controller code upload.
- Download that exact upload and run a real artifact-service round-trip
test before any private preparation. The test fails if the upload drops
hidden files again; it tests the actual transport instead of matching a
YAML flag.
- Keep the strict byte inventory and trusted source/receipt checks.
- Document why this code artifact differs from private attempt evidence,
which still uses the protected archive.
## Verification
- Exact retained artifact comparison: one missing `.npmignore`, zero
extra files.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml` passed.
- Protocol workflow security tests: 14 passed.
- The artifact-service integration test is explicit-only locally. The
controlled workflow supplies the real downloaded artifact, trusted
source and receipt digest.
- No product runtime, provider routing or grading code changed. CI runs
broader checks. Fresh controlled workflow qualification follows merge.
## Risks
Hidden files are allowed only in the code-only output of the
provider-credential-free build. Raw private evidence and credentials do
not enter that upload. The artifact verifier still requires every file
and SHA-256 from the trusted receipt.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection and
code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not
exposed to this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- entire-trail-link-start -->
https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/98/changes/paperclip/98
<!-- entire-trail-link-end -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agents and records their work.
> - Product E2E campaigns measure real agent behavior and model spend.
> - A paid hosted run completed both cases and all ten model receipts.
> - Its report job could not install dependencies from the committed
lock.
> - The trusted checkout needs a reviewed dependency correction.
> - This change applies a reviewed lock correction before the frozen
report install.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #17928
**Description**
The report in [run
40576181788](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40576181788)
failed with `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH`. Both paid cases had
passed. The worker and build jobs already restored the resolved source
lock, but the report did not.
**Steps to reproduce**
Dispatch the bounded daily campaign on the default branch with a stale
committed lock configuration. Workers use the resolved lock. The report
uses the stale lock and fails before report generation.
**Expected behavior**
The report installs frozen dependencies from a verified lock for the
exact trusted source. Evidence can be reported without repeating paid
work.
## What Changed
- Apply a reviewed lock correction from the trusted report checkout
before its frozen install. Use the same correction for the qualification
image build, which also requires a compatible frozen lock.
- Pin the original lock, correction and output SHA-256. The trusted
authorization job rejects unknown inputs before any paid work.
- Apply the same correction to trusted manual history publication.
Qualification image builds apply it only when their target equals the
workflow revision; other targets keep their own lock.
- Update existing Claude ACP and postgres patch identities and link the
declared yaml dependency. Existing package tarball integrity entries
stay unchanged; the declared yaml dependency adds exactly yaml@2.9.1
with pinned integrity.
- Keep runtime registry resolution and worker target locks out of the
credential-bearing report.
- Test valid correction, idempotence and changed-lock, changed-patch and
wrong-output rejection.
## Verification
- Focused workflow and lock-correction tests: 36 passed.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-full-stack-e2e.yml` passed.
- Original worker evidence: 2/2 passed, ten final model receipts, zero
unresolved model requests.
- The original report was regenerated from retained evidence with zero
provider calls and saved privately with replay provenance.
- Broader repository checks run in CI. Prior full Product checks passed
for #17928.
## Risks
The correction is tied to the reviewed committed lock. Dependency input
changes need a reviewed correction update. No new registry version or
lifecycle script can enter the privileged report through this fix. The
original failed workflow stays failed. No root lockfile is committed.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection and
code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not
exposed to this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- entire-trail-link-start -->
https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/108/changes/paperclip/108
<!-- entire-trail-link-end -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip Product E2E evaluations run real agent requests.
> - Model accounting includes setup, canceled requests and earlier
attempts.
> - Heartbeat token totals can omit setup requests.
> - The shared gateway journal retains final normalized usage for those
requests.
> - Reports should expose that usage once, with coverage and conflicts
visible.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #17928.
**What happened?** The two-case qualification reports showed complete
model dollars from the shared ledger, while their headline heartbeat
tokens omitted setup. For example, the verified Codex campaign has nine
final requests, including setup requests, whose aggregate is only
available in private receipts.
**Expected behavior** The existing ledger report shows all-request token
totals, a setup subtotal and missing/conflicting usage counts. Heartbeat
and request totals remain separate.
**Steps to reproduce** Run a budgeted native marker case with an
asynchronous setup probe, then compare the heartbeat totals with final
request observations in its retained ledger.
## What Changed
- Aggregate final provider/gateway usage once per model request,
including setup and canceled requests. Ignore provisional observations
and infrastructure reservations.
- Expose uncached input, cache-read input, cache-write input and output
separately. Label reasoning as included in output. Preserve agreeing
optional reasoning from partial final receipts only when it fits the
complete output count.
- Check every final provider/gateway observation for conflicting
supplied fields, including partial receipts. Exclude ambiguous requests
and report their conflicting coverage. Missing token usage remains
visible.
- Preserve retained reports without the optional token field; validate
new counts and totals before dashboard regeneration.
- Keep the journal-bound experiment identity stable when adding derived
token presentation, so old accepted experiments can still be linked
without a reimport. Journal changes still invalidate the receipt.
## Verification
- Focused report and scheduled-operations tests: 54 passed.
- Eval TypeScript check passed after refreshing ignored Runner
declaration outputs.
- Regression covers duplicate sources, provisional usage, setup,
canceled requests, missing usage, conflicting final usage,
infrastructure exclusion and invalid retained totals, including nonzero
totals with zero contributing requests. All 32 partial-field subsets are
checked in both observation orders.
- Regenerated both real retained Claude and Codex reports successfully
with all final request tokens and existing experiment receipts, using
zero model calls.
- Broader checks run in CI. No model calls are needed for report
generation.
## Risks
The subtotal requires final normalized gateway/provider token
observations. Older journals and other telemetry sources can have
incomplete coverage, which remains explicit. Token totals do not
establish invoice reconciliation. The change does not alter paid
selection, routing or budgets.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection and
code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not
exposed to this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta