## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Online workspace import preserves old controller-local files while
unrelated remote work continues.
> - A task can have an old local checkout and a separate durable remote
workspace.
> - A terminal remote run can retain a file-recovery hold on that task.
> - The legacy source checker rejects remote references, so that hold
blocks independent local imports.
> - This pull request proves that the hold belongs only to the separate
remote source and fences its finalizer during import.
> - Old files can migrate while the remote recovery obligation stays
intact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #19873 and #19854 for the existing cohort and source-verification
paths. Searched related online migration and remote recovery PRs; no
duplicate fix was found.
**What happened?**
Online import rejects a legacy Git checkout with
`online_workspace_source_scope_unproven` when a same-task failed run has
a prepared reference to a separate durable remote workspace. The legacy
run reader rejects remote references before the hold can be classified.
**Expected behavior**
Independent local files can import under their source fences. The
separate remote workspace, dirty writer, allocation, accepted result and
recovery hold must stay intact.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create related local Git workspaces.
2. Record a terminal failed native run and an exhausted file-recovery
hold for a separate durable remote workspace on the same task.
3. Import the local leaf online. The old checker refuses before capture.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `052c638b519ebb15f81e4fcd1a96adf6cd3b2f10`.
**Deployment mode**
Managed server with PostgreSQL and remote Runner execution.
## What Changed
- Add a distinct remote-only preservation proof. Keep remote runs
excluded from legacy export sources.
- Use the canonical source inspector and prepared-reference matcher.
Bind the run, finalizer, action, task, accepted result, authority,
allocation and prior committed snapshot.
- Acquire the held run's finalizer fence through the existing sorted
lock path. Existing source-proof reinspection rejects changes before
publication.
- Preserve previous-release prepared references with an older baseline
snapshot. Do not require that snapshot's epoch or source run to equal
the current run.
- Add real PostgreSQL import, authenticated cold restore, preservation,
refusal, lock-contention and publication-race regressions. Document the
behavior.
## Verification
- Genuine baseline failure on unchanged product: the real importer
refuses with `online_workspace_source_scope_unproven`.
- Final focused regression file: 23 tests passed in 13.19 seconds
through the canonical isolated PostgreSQL wrapper on Node 24.22.2.
- 24 existing affected migration/recovery tests passed against the same
final production bytes. Another 83 tests were explicitly excluded by the
focused selection; no full-suite pass is claimed.
- The positive imports local bytes, confirms the remote finalizer fence
is held during upload, leaves all remote records unchanged, parks the
original repository and authenticates/restores the archive.
- Refusal and race cases cover malformed, foreign, same-local and mixed
references; active owners/writers; changed allocation, result, task,
action, authority and baseline; and finalizer contention.
- Server TypeScript check, module-boundary check and `git diff --check`
passed.
- An intermediate run had one incorrect assertion that expected an
explicit empty legacy-source array. The canonical journal omits that
empty field. The final assertion accepts absence and still forbids any
exported remote source. Final relevant results are 23 new plus 24
existing passes, rather than a claim that the earlier invocation passed
in full.
- Required CI passed on head `6a278e717db2b5f614b0a595f99bfd0fb5430227`:
55 successful checks and 4 intentional skips. [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42650025033).
Greptile reviewed that head at 5/5 with no actionable findings or open
inline/review comments. Hosted continuation remains pending normal
delivery.
## Risks
- A false disjointness proof could admit an unsafe local import. Strict
company/task/source binding, the canonical inspector, finalizer fencing
and publication revalidation retain refusal on uncertainty.
- This does not recover or settle remote files. Dirty authority and the
original recovery obligation remain unchanged.
- No schema, public API, archive format or saved-run identity changes.
Existing persisted state carries forward.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository
tools and code execution. The runtime 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
Dotta
5c73633a8f