mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
Dotta
b68f69a801
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - The protected chat catalog selects an immutable evaluated source. > - The measured parent produced seven independently reviewed passes out of ten. > - The authoring observer rejected valid author-only use, and two credential wording guards needed stricter boundaries. > - The reviewed source corrects those observers and declares each affected oracle version. > - This PR pins that source without changing the original questions or run limits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19346, #19095, #19093. **What happened?** The measured authoring response described real saved author-only use. The old observer required zero assignments and wrongly rejected an audited author-only assignment. The credential scanner also needed to retain an unsafe comma-separated destination and mixed reference/password requests. These are evaluation-layer corrections. The parent timeline and company runs did not complete; no causal latency fix is claimed here. **Expected behavior** Select the reviewed immutable observer source. Keep all original scenario identities, questions, conditions, actor/resource proof, counts, clocks, credentials, model, permissions and zero retries unchanged. **Steps to reproduce** Run the source authoring and shared credential consumer controls. Compare the committed candidate descriptor snapshot with source `d1ab241cac0db7f700fadaaf62ffb3d2b51cf0c3`. ## What Changed - Scope the private Company creation observer to the exact Create secret dialog. Its successful close can open a separate details Sheet without making the observer wait for that Sheet. - Admit blank or bounded non-secret metadata defaults only for the Company saved-secret-name question variant. Verify the same canonical payload in independent human accounting. - Pin source `d1ab241cac0db7f700fadaaf62ffb3d2b51cf0c3`, tree `c4efaef62405cbb37236ad01db1187cf8a156868`. - Store exact descriptor SHA256 `60db015337e807ff53a376b6db11c375a239097b224d2253dad68ecd0b0f61f3`. - Update only seven oracle-version leaves: authoring v5, company v11, personal v12, and four shared external consumers v6. Source-file lists remain fixed. - Retain provenance anchors, historical conditions and failures. Update the single expected-target assertion. Exactly three metadata/test files change. ## Verification - 41 manifest, adapter, reconciliation and CLI controls pass on this actual pin projection. - Qualified source: one actual-worker offline browser canary passes all three creation, failed-POST and missing-form mechanisms. Full E2E types pass on this successor. Reused unchanged proof: 286 distinct controls across authoring, Company saved-name question, human accounting and shared-consumer/declaration suites pass. Full E2E typecheck passes. All 242 declarations load with zero fixture callbacks. - SDK506 inputs and registry `efa70621` remain unchanged. Launcher SHA256 `2b9a6953`, private transport interfaces, production/UI/CLI source, lockfile and workflows remain unchanged from the measured source. - All 244 YAML queries, context and expected outcomes are byte-identical to the parent. All descriptor native/human counts, clocks, authentication, setup policy and source-file lists remain fixed. - The parent source has seven measured semantic passes out of ten. The new authoring and credential oracle versions are native-unrun. Existing failed grades remain failed. - The isolated company concurrency diagnostic [run42124035785](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42124035785) is a separate measurement. This pin does not alter concurrency or claim to fix native noncompletion. - Repo-wide build/tests were not repeated for this three-file metadata update. Normal PR CI remains required. ## Risks - The name character set does not prove secrecy. The saved-key-name variant can admit a credential-shaped synthetic default; this general classifier limit remains unfixed and tracked in #19093. These are finite experimental journeys only. Independent review must reject any actual credential-like or unknown-value prefill without clear public-metadata/proposed-name grounding, even if autograding is green. If safety cannot be established, the journey cannot receive PASS credit. Secure UI save, human answer, canonical payload/hash, audit, binding and byte-leak checks remain mandatory. - Earlier CI includes three explicit runner-shutdown cancellations and one deferred-observer test assertion at line573. Those outcomes remain retained and unresolved; the Company dialog repair makes no claim to fix them. New exact-head CI is required. - The Company dialog mismatch was established from production source and an actual-worker model-free regression before the next secure-save step. The prior isolated attempt did not reach private entry, so it is not evidence of an observed private-save failure. - A valid review warning remains as a documented follow-up in #19093: safe closing comma exclusions such as “only there” can be falsely rejected by the credential wording guard. The pin authorizes bounded experimental journeys only. If a valid actual handoff hits that guard, its failed grade is retained; no regex failure is waived or counted as PASS. Independent semantic review remains required for both secret handoffs. - Isolated Company original5055 remains FAILED. A real succeeded native took255949ms and produced a valid saved-name question, but the observer rejected its proposed non-secret metadata default. Secure entry and the second native were not reached. This successor repairs that assertion boundary only. - The next selected74/466/578 run is an explicit bounded lower-concurrency functional experiment at the existing cap2, same model, original clocks and zero retries. It is not evidence of a latency fix or reliability improvement. - Local observer proof is not a new native PASS. Timeline and company noncompletion remain unresolved, and no clock increase is included. - A secure handoff still requires independent semantic review before PASS credit. Actual saved resources, owner/audit evidence, provider outcomes and privacy gates remain required. - The source catalog remains separate from master. This PR does not merge the core or full catalog feature changes into master. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with repository tools and code execution. The host does not expose the context-window size. ## 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