mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 12:04:41 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
35820cf398
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip must account for paid eval work. > - The maintained Runner workflow distributes one immutable controller manifest. > - Its cost gate currently requires vendor proofs for every operating charge. > - Model-spend qualification must also work under an explicit policy that keeps operating charges separate. > - This PR applies the shared model-readiness policy to the hosted controller. > - It retains every operating hold and still rejects missing model receipts and incomplete workers. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17928, #17889. **What happened?** Runner qualification requires full-lifecycle vendor operating proofs even when the operator selects model-request readiness. That blocks the model-token qualification path. **Expected behavior** An explicit `overhead.accountingReadiness: "model_requests"` policy permits absent operating cost proofs. Supplied proofs still validate. Complete final model receipts are required. **Steps to reproduce** Prepare a two-worker hosted manifest with the explicit policy and no vendor cost proofs. Preserve missing-worker allocations, then complete both workers and inspect the private archive summary. A second test returns a provider refusal without terminal usage and requires failure with the full hold. ## What Changed - Apply the shared explicit policy to hosted capacity and observability cost-proof admission. - Preserve pricing windows, model bounds, immutable source/request/runtime identities, trace quotas and every allocation. - Reject zero or unresolved model requests in this policy, even if a request has a provisional bound. - Retain operating amounts and pending reconciliation through campaign and private archive summaries. - Document the separate model-readiness contract. Preserve strict behavior when the field is absent. ## Verification - Regression first failed at the original vendor-bound gate. - All 80 controlled-eval Node checks pass, including source and copied portable runtime checks, archived partial/missing workers, credential exclusion and model receipt failure. - Product readiness prerequisite #17928 has its own eval unit/typecheck and full CI checks. - No paid workflow, credential change or recurring activation is part of this source PR. ## Risks This opt-in policy does not prove a full-lifecycle operating-cost ceiling. The report retains operating holds and pending reconciliation. Default policies retain the existing vendor-proof gate. Source and worker identity checks remain required. A model refusal without final usage now fails readiness even if its reservation has a reviewed bound. ## 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 - [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>