## Thinking Path
> - Completion guidance can link a saved task document even when the
user requested only a file.
> - The validator loads document publication proof when the objective
requests a document or the completion report cites one.
> - The success tests added in #18661 all requested both a document and
a CSV.
> - Those tests therefore could not detect loss of the cited-document
branch.
> - This test requests only a CSV and resubmits the actual guidance link
with a registered file receipt.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Addresses the [coverage warning on
#18661](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18661#discussion_r4447457009).
**What happened?** The earlier success cases exercised the
document-requested condition. The independently cited-document condition
lacked regression coverage.
**Expected behavior:** A file-only objective can cite a verified
saved-document guidance link alongside the required registered file.
**Steps to reproduce:** Publish a task document, register a CSV, request
only the CSV, obtain the saved-document href from completion guidance,
and submit both pieces of evidence. Removing only the cited-document
lookup must make this case fail.
**Paperclip version or commit:** Current master after #18661.
**Deployment mode:** Local source tests with real PostgreSQL and native
publication receipts; the remote CSV reader is controlled. No deployment
is part of this follow-up.
## What Changed
- Allow the existing registered-file test helper to accept a file-only
objective.
- Add one success case using real document publication, file
registration, and the server-generated guidance href.
- Keep production source and the existing negative cases unchanged.
## Verification
- All 27 native completion feedback tests pass on current production
code.
- The new case fails when only `|| citesTaskDocument` is temporarily
removed from publication lookup. The production file is restored exactly
afterward. This demonstrates a coverage gap; it does not establish a new
production defect.
- Server typecheck and `git diff --check` pass.
- Full repository CI passed, including both required E2E and verify
aggregate gates. Greptile scored the current head 5/5 with no unresolved
findings. The separate optional Paperclip review is queued and has
supplied no finding. The preceding production PR records its separate
local full-suite timeout and isolated passing retry; this follow-up uses
the focused local suite and full CI rather than repeating that long
local run.
## Risks
Low risk: only the existing test file and its fixture helper change. The
new case depends on real document/file publication contracts, including
the CSV receipt requirement.
## Model Used
OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with reasoning, code editing, shell
execution, and automated tests. The context-window size is not exposed
in 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
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] 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>
