## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Connected tasks retain their exact external request across failures.
> - Task Retry must preserve that request and prove that old execution
cannot continue.
> - A workspace setup failure can settle before any provider dispatch.
> - The chat retry guard accepted one specific validation failure but
rejected other fully recorded setup failures.
> - This pull request reuses the same strict server settlement proof for
those failures.
> - The benefit is one safe continuation through the existing queue,
with all source and execution gates intact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #18803, #18845, #18852, #18853 and #18860. These changes preserve
workspace writers, bind completed preservation, or repair other
preparation and native continuation paths. This change repairs the
separate connected-chat guard for fully recorded legacy setup failures.
Search also found #18876, which repairs issue scope during deferred wake
promotion and does not repair this guard.
**What happened?**
A connected task failed during workspace reservation before provider
dispatch. Its source remained authorized. Task Retry saved an intent and
chat action, but the chat worker rejected that request as
`failed_chat_retry_not_authorized`. No successor was created. The old
failure had a bootstrap marker, a dispatch-only Runner profile, the
matching server error and durable measured settlement events, and no
runtime, process, output, result or environment lease.
**Expected behavior**
A deliberate board Retry can continue the exact saved input after the
complete never-dispatched proof passes. An unfinished earlier writer,
changed source, accepted result or unknown execution state must still
prevent execution.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Admit an authorized request through a restricted chat endpoint.
2. Settle setup before provider dispatch, for example while an earlier
workspace writer is unfinished.
3. Keep the exact server error and durable measurement events, a
dispatch-only Runner profile, and no execution resources.
4. Press task Retry after the independent writer and ordinary admission
gates permit work.
5. The original guard saves the Retry action but refuses to create a
successor.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `a00109aa35`. The branch is rebased on current
master.
**Deployment mode**
Hosted task diagnosis. Local proof uses real Express HTTP routes, chat
authorization, heartbeat queue admission and disposable embedded
PostgreSQL on macOS arm64, Node 26.4.0. Provider work is deliberately
prevented by occupied fixture capacity.
## What Changed
- Extend only canonical task Retry's existing strict pre-provider
preparation proof to generic server-settled setup failures.
- Keep exact result shape, dispatch profile, controller, runtime,
process, output, event and resource checks. No diagnostic message
allowlist is added.
- Exercise GitHub and Telegram HTTP Retry with the original sender and
saved input. Keep the failed run unchanged and create at most one queued
successor.
- Cover provider events, retained native state/results, modified source,
unknown result metadata, live controllers, process identity, source
leases and an independent unfinished writer.
- Document the guarded contract and correct the obsolete access-map
sentence. No new endpoint or agent permission is added.
## Verification
- Red before repair: both setup causes failed through the real
HTTP/chat/queue path because the durable Retry had no successor. An
initial retained-native negative fixture had an invalid foreign-key
setup; that fixture was corrected before the final run.
- Green: 37 focused integration cases pass, including 22 new
GitHub/Telegram cases and 15 existing pre-provider source and execution
guards.
- Current head `1bf69d20e02a049248ec378f087505563daeb9a0`: all 37
focused integration cases and full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` pass
after the master rebase. The full `pnpm build` also passes.
- Map structure, module boundaries and `git diff --check` pass.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` is running; all six chat shards passed and
the remaining server suites are progressing. This is not a full-suite
pass claim.
- Greptile and Paperclip Review both reviewed this exact head at 5/5
with no actionable findings or review threads.
- Initial CI passed all jobs except the unchanged Runner package suite.
Its `runtime-host.test.ts` approve-reads case failed before its intended
assertions because a managed credential home could not acquire its
loopback-port quorum. The exact case passes locally. A wider 121-case
check hit the same lease error in a different Pi case (120 passed); all
121 pass with one worker. The exact competing port owner is unknown. One
unchanged retry of only failed CI jobs passed, including the Runner
package suite and aggregate `ci / verify`. All current-head required CI
gates are green; the original failure remains in workflow history.
- The dependency setup initially missed the embedded PostgreSQL
package's dylib symlinks. Running its own postinstall helper fixed the
local setup before assertions. This was not a product test failure.
- This change has not been deployed. The original hosted task has not
been replayed with the fix.
## Risks
- Never-dispatched proof must remain strict. A bootstrap marker or empty
process fields alone cannot authorize continuation. The regression cases
retain contrary-state holds.
- The inherited session display hint remains history and supplies no
resume authority.
- Current connection, principal, source integrity, pause, budget,
approval, dependency and workspace-owner gates remain in their existing
owners.
- No schema, provider profile, trust policy, model or credential
permission changes are required.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code editing, tool use and
PostgreSQL/browser verification. This session does not expose a more
specific deployment model ID or 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
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
