mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 20:21:50 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
5787962454
<!-- 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>