## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Phase 2 of the durable-ownership plan moves in-progress record kinds
to one shared ownership path, guided by chaos data.
> - The first data doc (#19927) covered local waves only. Remote
runners, leases and sandboxes need a Daytona wave.
> - This pull request adds the results of one Daytona wave to the data
doc.
> - The benefit is that Phase 2 and Phase 3 prioritize remote kinds from
measured data.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #19927 (data doc), #19934 (claimed-wake settle), #19863 (speed
budgets).
**What is the problem?**
The Phase 2 data doc had no remote data.
**Where is it documented?**
`doc/plans/2026-11-07-phase2-reconciler-data.md`.
**What should change?**
Add the Daytona wave's per-kind violations, settle latency, failures and
speed numbers.
## What Changed
- Added a "Daytona wave" section: 6 tasks with K1, K2 and two K4 outages
of about 575 s. 5 of 6 passed, and R6 was clean.
- Recorded the t03 failure: a Retry was cancelled by the company-wide
accounting gate (Phase 3 scope).
- Recorded the claimed-wake leak again (#19934 fixes it) and remote
settle times of 76–107 s.
- Corrected the earlier note about the image content-ID mismatch.
## Verification
- Wave `w-20261108T012041-s9301`; the numbers come from a copy of the
kept database and the read-only ownership sampler.
- This is a docs-only change.
## Risks
- Low. Docs only. The samples are small and the doc says so.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file edits).
## 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
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
