{ "schemaVersion": 1, "parentHarness": "H0", "generation": "H0", "analysisRunId": "h0-root-cause-20260809-a", "analysisRole": "Sol Root Cause Miner", "inputBinding": { "patternEvidence": { "path": "pattern-evidence/all-cells.json", "sha256": "c3793871a0569fb545adeea627de18e02953514ffcf4bbcda10972e2f7fc6dcc" }, "coverage": { "path": "coverage.json", "sha256": "d41e7f080f47f331ea06b9ba09a662c372f5d64d24f3a3311a96590fe18e7942" }, "outcomeSidecar": { "path": "outcome-sidecar.json", "sha256": "d24502794b817bbca8b3b5d9df472fc00eb63331dce074f9c325e8464c87a995" } }, "coverage": { "expectedLogicalCells": 24, "includedSelectedValidBehaviorCells": 24, "excludedLogicalCells": 0, "nonSelectedInfrastructureInvalidPhysicalAttempts": 8, "behaviorAttributionDenominator": 24, "boundary": "Only the 24 selected valid_behavior logical cells are used for behavior attribution. The eight non-selected infrastructure_invalid physical attempts are retained only as coverage/history and are not occurrences, counterexamples, or outcome evidence." }, "outcomeSummary": { "workflowCompleted": 18, "workflowFailed": 6, "focusedTestsPassed": 19, "patternCandidateCounts": { "omission": 45, "repeatedExploration": 4, "zeroInformationGain": 10 }, "causalCaution": "Counts establish recurrence and scope, not causality. Each weakness below is retained only where a first divergence, a plausible Harness responsibility chain, alternatives, counterevidence, and a falsifiable behavioral prediction can be stated." }, "weaknesses": [ { "weakness_id": "W-01", "rank": 1, "pattern_refs": [ { "cell": "C001", "type": "omission", "stage": "implementation", "summary": "Task 1 completion first exposed an independent status-line requirement; a task-plan formatting repair was needed." }, { "cell": "C006", "type": "omission", "stage": "tasks_to_implementation", "summary": "Generated tasks omitted executor-readable independent status markers and completion initially failed." }, { "cell": "C007", "type": "repeated_exploration_and_zero_information_gain", "stage": "tasks_to_implementation", "summary": "An empty executor-status section led to at least five failed completion probes and several marker placements before success." }, { "cell": "C009", "type": "zero_information_gain", "stage": "implementation", "summary": "Repeated Task 1 completion attempts returned the same TASK_STATUS_LINE_MISSING state after status edits." }, { "cell": "C016", "type": "omission", "stage": "tasks_to_implementation", "summary": "A seven-task artifact was presented as executable but lacked the independent marker lines required by the executor." } ], "occurrence_cells": [ "C001", "C006", "C007", "C009", "C016" ], "first_divergence": "The earliest recurring divergence is the tasks stage: a human-readable tasks.md is accepted without the machine-readable independent status representation later required by the implementation executor. The hidden mismatch becomes observable only when the first completion command fails in implementation.", "hypothesis": "H0 splits task lifecycle ownership between agent-authored Markdown and a downstream parser whose accepted status syntax is not reliably present in the task-generation obligation or validated at the tasks gate. This makes implementation rediscover a machine contract through errors and marker trial-and-error instead of receiving an already-valid lifecycle state.", "attribution": [ "Information Flow", "Artifact", "Agent Responsibility", "Recovery", "Workflow" ], "cross_run_task_support": { "generationScope": "H0 only; no cross-generation evidence was allowed or supplied.", "tasks": [ "axum-custom-executor", "bat-sanitize", "cli-item-list-fields", "pytest-addini-type-expressions" ], "cells": [ "C001", "C006", "C007", "C009", "C016" ], "supportStatement": "Five logical cells across four tasks independently expose the same task-status representation boundary. Three show the missing-marker condition directly; two additionally show repeated identical parser results before a different query or representation succeeds.", "outcomeContext": "Four occurrence cells completed and one, C009, workflow-failed despite focused tests passing. The four successful cells are evidence that recovery can work, not evidence that the first divergence is harmless." }, "observed_impact": { "completion": "C009 ended workflow_failed with focused tests passing while an unresolved task/document chain remained; the other occurrence cells recovered and completed.", "quality": "No direct product-quality loss is consistently attributable to the status contract; completed occurrence cells include very high Judge scores.", "cost": "Observed costs include failed completion calls, parser/status searches, multiple tasks.md edits, repeated identical diagnostics, and delayed task execution.", "stability": "The same representation mismatch recurs across Rust, Go, and Python tasks, which weakens a task-language-specific explanation." }, "alternatives": [ { "explanation": "Agent omission or model stochasticity: the status syntax may have been available but overlooked.", "assessment": "Plausible for individual cells, but weakened by recurrence across four tasks and by C024's explicit abstention that the task-stage skill did not visibly specify standalone markers before the executor error." }, { "explanation": "The tasks authors simply produced malformed artifacts.", "assessment": "Proximate cause, but it does not explain why the tasks gate accepted artifacts that the next Harness-owned parser could not consume." }, { "explanation": "The parser diagnostics and later task query are sufficient recovery behavior.", "assessment": "They eventually enable recovery in several cells, but only after the first invalid handoff and, in C007/C009, several unchanged retries." } ], "counterevidence": [ "C010 and C011 completed without a retained status-contract Pattern, showing the failure is not deterministic under H0.", "C001, C006, C007, and C016 recovered and completed; their final Judge results show that the weakness primarily affects workflow cost/stability rather than necessarily final product quality.", "C024 abstained from calling missing markers a task-stage omission because the pre-write marker obligation was not visible; this supports an information-flow gap but limits claims about agent negligence.", "Later task-specific queries returned actionable marker/status metadata, so not every status-related probe was zero information gain." ], "counterfactual_prediction": "If the relevant Harness policy made task lifecycle representation unambiguous before implementation, then on otherwise comparable runs the first task-completion transition should not emit TASK_STATUS_LINE_MISSING, implementation should not edit task prose merely to discover parser syntax, and status-specific retries should disappear while product tests and Judge quality remain approximately unchanged. If only the error name changes or agents still trial-edit hidden syntax, the hypothesis is not supported.", "confidence": "high", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-57-41-019fe550-213c-7b50-96d4-0d1df4270391.jsonl#L84", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T11-46-50-019fe4a1-6412-7ce1-a784-3e63fd482f09.jsonl#L231", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T11-46-50-019fe4a1-6412-7ce1-a784-3e63fd482f09.jsonl#L270", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T11-28-32-019fe490-a5df-70d3-9629-c63ca684c471.jsonl#L119", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T11-40-08-019fe49b-444e-76e0-a77a-9b5f3fe06101.jsonl#L93", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T11-40-08-019fe49b-444e-76e0-a77a-9b5f3fe06101.jsonl#L176", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T11-39-06-019fe49a-5088-7850-880f-e14b6b394505.jsonl#L130", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-43-25-019fe543-0f7a-7f20-9dd2-125f9168df3e.jsonl#L101", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-57-45-019fe550-2ff8-79f2-80c2-d2bcc4826b74.jsonl#L201" ] }, { "weakness_id": "W-02", "rank": 2, "pattern_refs": [ { "cluster": "accepted_behavior_or_compatibility_obligations_missing_at_implementation_handoff", "cells": [ "C003", "C004", "C005", "C006", "C008", "C013", "C014", "C015", "C016", "C017", "C021" ] }, { "cluster": "verification_or_finalization_evidence_claimed_complete_while_open", "cells": [ "C005", "C009", "C012", "C016", "C017", "C021", "C023" ] }, { "cluster": "planning_artifact_lost_or_weakened_accepted_obligation", "cells": [ "C012", "C016", "C017", "C018" ] } ], "occurrence_cells": [ "C003", "C004", "C005", "C006", "C008", "C009", "C012", "C013", "C014", "C015", "C016", "C017", "C018", "C020", "C021", "C023" ], "first_divergence": "Across the recurring cases, the earliest common divergence is an obligation-to-evidence break: a confirmed requirement is either weakened while being translated into delta/design/tasks, or remains open when an implementation task is marked done and the implementation stage reports completion. Independent review, validation, or finalization then becomes the first place the missing behavior or evidence is made concrete.", "hypothesis": "H0's stage acceptance and task completion semantics do not bind each accepted obligation to current observable evidence. Broad test success and agent-authored task status can therefore close implementation even when one behavior slice, compatibility condition, static check, document synchronization, or evidence reference is still open. Review often compensates, but it is operating as late discovery rather than validating an already obligation-complete handoff.", "attribution": [ "Verification", "Workflow", "Artifact", "Information Flow", "Agent Responsibility" ], "cross_run_task_support": { "generationScope": "H0 only; no cross-generation claim is made.", "tasks": [ "axum-custom-executor", "bat-sanitize", "cli-item-list-fields", "eslint-preserve-caught-error", "prometheus-utf8-negotiation", "pytest-addini-type-expressions", "pytest-plugin-entry-points", "sqlmodel-field-constraints" ], "cells": [ "C003", "C004", "C005", "C006", "C008", "C009", "C012", "C013", "C014", "C015", "C016", "C017", "C018", "C020", "C021", "C023" ], "supportStatement": "Sixteen cells across all eight task families contain at least one obligation/evidence closure break. The actual omitted details differ by task, which argues against a single product bug; the repeated Harness-level shape is that completion precedes obligation-specific proof and a later role discovers the gap.", "outcomeContext": "All six workflow-failed cells are within this support set, but ten supported cells still completed, often after reviewer- or finalization-driven repair. This association is not treated as proof that the weakness alone caused any failure." }, "observed_impact": { "completion": "The support set contains all six workflow failures. C009 and C018 also had focused tests passing, demonstrating that test success did not guarantee workflow terminality or acceptable evidence.", "quality": "The sharpest quality impacts are task-specific behavior gaps later reproduced by review, including scanner compatibility, CLI error precedence, Prometheus serializer/adapter coverage, and public typing boundaries. Several were repaired before final approval; some workflow-failed cells retained lower Judge scores.", "cost": "Common costs are an extra review rejection, repair segment, regression-test expansion, document re-finalization, and another review or validation pass.", "stability": "The pattern spans behavior, documentation, static typing, compatibility, and evidence bookkeeping in Rust, Go, and Python tasks." }, "alternatives": [ { "explanation": "Task-specific difficulty and model stochasticity caused ordinary implementation bugs.", "assessment": "Strong alternative for each specific defect and retained as such. The Harness attribution is narrower: not that H0 created the defects, but that its completion contract repeatedly accepted handoffs without obligation-specific evidence." }, { "explanation": "Independent review is intentionally designed to find such issues, so late discovery is expected behavior rather than weakness.", "assessment": "Review did successfully recover many cells. The weakness hypothesis concerns the repeated mismatch between a prior terminal/complete claim and still-open explicit obligations, not the existence of review itself." }, { "explanation": "Upstream proposal/design quality was incomplete, so implementation could not do better.", "assessment": "Supported in some cells such as C012, C016, C017, and C018, but other cells had explicit tasks that the implementation simply closed without complete evidence. Upstream loss is therefore one contributor, not a complete explanation." }, { "explanation": "Unavailable dependencies or static tools explain open verification.", "assessment": "Applicable to C017 and C023, but many other occurrences used available focused tests and later reviews reproduced missing behavior with the same local environment." } ], "counterevidence": [ "C010 and C011 have no retained omission Pattern and completed with high Judge scores, proving H0 can produce obligation-complete handoffs.", "Many supported cells completed after correction, and later reviews frequently changed from Changes Required to Approved; review is an effective compensating control in those cells.", "C001 completed with 100/100 Judges despite a status-related omission only; not every workflow friction implies product verification weakness.", "Some omissions were corrected within the same stage before a terminal transition, such as C012 and portions of C016/C017, limiting their outcome impact.", "The specific missing cases are heterogeneous, so the evidence does not justify any claim that one test family, product domain, or model error causes all occurrences." ], "counterfactual_prediction": "If implementation completion were behaviorally tied to current evidence for each accepted obligation, the first independent review should encounter fewer cases where a task is already marked done but a directly named behavior, compatibility case, static check, or authoritative-document update is absent. The earliest change should be fewer completion claims preceding the same later review finding, not merely more total tests. If review still finds the same unmet obligations after an allegedly evidence-bound completion, or agents satisfy the gate with stale/planned evidence, the hypothesis is not supported.", "confidence": "high", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-48-30-019fe547-b99d-7da0-9bb3-7985dc2993ce.jsonl#L234", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T12-22-17-019fe4c1-dc0c-78d1-81ed-ed842ebd87ba.jsonl#L164", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T12-21-40-019fe4c1-4895-7271-aea8-a7b6a112dcd2.jsonl#L127", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T12-11-02-019fe4b7-8f7b-7dc3-a3c0-aabe3aec5254.jsonl#L118", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T12-00-25-019fe4ad-d576-7a92-8a64-578f32260b6c.jsonl#L213", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T11-39-06-019fe49a-5088-7850-880f-e14b6b394505.jsonl#L736", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T13-06-11-019fe4ea-0c75-7333-8730-ed79af182fb9.jsonl#L47", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-17-51-019fe562-96dc-75b0-a5f1-83784632c893.jsonl#L124", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-37-45-019fe574-ce2e-7de2-b6cb-76b18b2ba733.jsonl#L147", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T17-33-16-019fe5de-8fd4-7690-8160-7e7160b0d946.jsonl#L171", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-18-44-019fe563-671f-7d63-8633-35eecca96956.jsonl#L139", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-13-40-019fe55e-c332-71a1-8c6a-24ae31a49a21.jsonl#L169", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-53-56-019fe54c-b17e-7591-906b-02ab54ddbd42.jsonl#L65", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-33-34-019fe53a-0d3f-7df2-af02-4a4444b8454c.jsonl#L324", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-03-16-019fe555-3c5c-7ce3-b47b-2e2e8396a5b2.jsonl#L133", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T13-45-10-019fe50d-bc43-7e20-a96a-4c5912633d8c.jsonl#L61" ] }, { "weakness_id": "W-03", "rank": 3, "pattern_refs": [ { "cell": "C004", "type": "repeated_exploration_and_zero_information_gain", "summary": "Review re-entered after an unchanged finalization blocker and preserved the same Changes Required decision." }, { "cell": "C015", "type": "repeated_exploration_and_zero_information_gain", "summary": "Review reran focused checks while the same cross-artifact V-1 contradiction remained outside the reviewer's writable scope." }, { "cell": "C018", "type": "omission_and_zero_information_gain", "summary": "Validation briefly cleared real design/task conflicts without changing the source artifact, then remained in a validation-only write scope while repeated requests for design-stage authority produced no controller transition." } ], "occurrence_cells": [ "C004", "C015", "C018" ], "first_divergence": "A validator or reviewer detects a blocker whose source lies in another artifact/stage, but the active role can only rewrite its own report and has no observed state-changing return path to the owner of the conflicting source. In C018 this first becomes explicit when validation acknowledges it will not edit delta-design.md, yet clears the blocker in validation.md; in C004/C015 the later review is repeatedly re-entered while the source blocker is unchanged.", "hypothesis": "H0's stage-scoped artifact ownership can identify a cross-stage contradiction without assigning a reachable repair owner or producing a controller state transition. This encourages false clearance in the report layer or repeated review/validation of an unchanged source state, turning a correct blocker into a dead-end recovery loop.", "attribution": [ "Workflow", "Agent Responsibility", "Recovery", "Artifact", "Information Flow" ], "cross_run_task_support": { "generationScope": "H0 only.", "tasks": [ "bat-sanitize", "prometheus-utf8-negotiation", "pytest-addini-type-expressions" ], "cells": [ "C004", "C015", "C018" ], "supportStatement": "Three cells across three task families show the same high-level dead-end: a downstream checking role repeatedly sees an unchanged upstream artifact conflict that it cannot repair in its current scope.", "outcomeContext": "All three cells are workflow_failed; C018 also has focused tests passing but 12/11 Judge scores. This alignment raises concern but is not treated as causal proof because the tasks and contradictions are different and the sample is small." }, "observed_impact": { "completion": "All three occurrence cells failed the workflow. C018 never reached reviewer activity, and C004/C015 retained Changes Required blockers despite substantive product/test progress.", "quality": "The primary impact is evidence/workflow validity rather than a uniform product defect; C015's implementation checks passed while the artifact contradiction remained.", "cost": "Repeated review routes, focused-suite reruns, report rewrites, and multiple authorization/restatement turns occurred without source-state change.", "stability": "The same dead-end shape appears in validation and review roles across different task ecosystems." }, "alternatives": [ { "explanation": "The operator repeatedly requested re-review, so the loop is external coordination rather than Harness behavior.", "assessment": "Plausible for the trigger, but the Harness still returned the same role/write scope and provided no state-changing route; the hypothesis is about that recovery boundary, not who sent the repeated message." }, { "explanation": "Strict artifact ownership is intentional experimental integrity and should fail rather than route backward.", "assessment": "Strong alternative. The weakness would be unsupported if a clean terminal blocked outcome were expected and emitted promptly; the observed issue is repeated or falsely cleared checking with no source change." }, { "explanation": "These are three unrelated document mistakes.", "assessment": "The specific contradictions are unrelated. The common claim is limited to unreachable repair ownership after detection, not the content of the mistakes." } ], "counterevidence": [ "C017 also exposed cross-document scope inconsistencies at validation, but operator clarification allowed validation to proceed and the run completed; not every cross-artifact conflict becomes a dead end.", "C013's repeated finalization pass found new stale fields and changed the source documents, demonstrating productive cross-stage revalidation when the active role had an effective write path.", "C004's first re-review followed real implementation/test changes and was productive; only later unchanged re-entry supports this weakness.", "C015 explicitly records constrained artifact scopes, so preservation of the blocker may be correct behavior even though the overall workflow could not recover." ], "counterfactual_prediction": "If H0 assigned a reachable repair owner or a terminal blocked transition when a downstream role detects an out-of-scope source contradiction, the first observable change should be that the next action changes the source artifact/state or ends with a stable blocked result. It should not re-run the same review against an unchanged digest or make only the report say the source conflict is resolved. If identical review loops or report-only clearance persist, the hypothesis is not supported.", "confidence": "medium", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T12-22-17-019fe4c1-dc0c-78d1-81ed-ed842ebd87ba.jsonl#L216", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T12-22-17-019fe4c1-dc0c-78d1-81ed-ed842ebd87ba.jsonl#L243", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T17-42-36-019fe5e7-1c18-7e33-8e81-611ae87e612f.jsonl#L145", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T17-33-16-019fe5de-8fd4-7690-8160-7e7160b0d946.jsonl#L356", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-53-56-019fe54c-b17e-7591-906b-02ab54ddbd42.jsonl#L123", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-53-56-019fe54c-b17e-7591-906b-02ab54ddbd42.jsonl#L139", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-53-56-019fe54c-b17e-7591-906b-02ab54ddbd42.jsonl#L241", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-53-56-019fe54c-b17e-7591-906b-02ab54ddbd42.jsonl#L274" ] }, { "weakness_id": "W-04", "rank": 4, "pattern_refs": [ { "cluster": "identical_tool_or_patch_retry_without_intervening_state_change", "cells": [ "C001", "C013", "C017", "C021" ] }, { "cluster": "repeated_wait_or_authorization_request_without_new_state", "cells": [ "C018", "C022" ] }, { "cluster": "unchanged_review_reentry", "cells": [ "C004", "C015" ] } ], "occurrence_cells": [ "C001", "C004", "C013", "C015", "C017", "C018", "C021", "C022" ], "first_divergence": "After one action returns an identical failure, timeout, or unchanged blocker and no intervening repository/controller/input state change is observed, the next action repeats the same target rather than branching to diagnosis, changing the action contract, transferring responsibility, or stopping.", "hypothesis": "H0 recovery is permissive about repeating actions without a state delta and provides no consistently observed stop-or-branch discipline across tool, wait, review, and authorization paths. This allows local agent stochasticity or repeated prompts to become multi-step zero-information loops.", "attribution": [ "Recovery", "Workflow", "Information Flow" ], "cross_run_task_support": { "generationScope": "H0 only.", "tasks": [ "axum-custom-executor", "bat-sanitize", "prometheus-utf8-negotiation", "pytest-addini-type-expressions", "pytest-plugin-entry-points", "sqlmodel-field-constraints" ], "cells": [ "C001", "C004", "C013", "C015", "C017", "C018", "C021", "C022" ], "supportStatement": "Eight cells across six task families contain a bounded before/after pair with no observable information or state gain. The triggers are heterogeneous, so this supports a general recovery-discipline hypothesis only at medium confidence.", "outcomeContext": "Four occurrence cells completed and four workflow-failed. The mixed outcomes argue that the main demonstrated impact is cost/stability, not a deterministic completion or quality effect." }, "observed_impact": { "completion": "Mixed: C004, C015, and C018 failed; C022 completed after the parent took over. No uniform terminal effect is demonstrated.", "quality": "No direct product-quality decrement is isolated from these bounded no-gain intervals.", "cost": "Duplicate process starts, failed patches, repeated focused suites, repeated authorization turns, and multiple timed-out waits added observable structural cost.", "stability": "The recurrence spans candidate, validator, reviewer, and task-executor interactions." }, "alternatives": [ { "explanation": "Model stochasticity causes duplicate actions and is not Harness-attributable.", "assessment": "Strong alternative. Retained because the Harness-level recovery contract is the only common layer, but no direct evidence shows H0 required the repeats." }, { "explanation": "A retry is rational after transient process failure or asynchronous work.", "assessment": "True in many counterexamples. This weakness includes only bounded pairs where Luna established identical state and no intervening change; it does not classify permission changes, environment corrections, modified worktrees, or independent review as no-gain." }, { "explanation": "The later successful action justifies earlier repeated attempts.", "assessment": "It justifies continued recovery, not necessarily repeating an unchanged action before acquiring new state." } ], "counterevidence": [ "Most repeated test and review actions in the 24-cell batch were explicitly classified as reasonable revalidation because code, documents, environment, permissions, stage, or role changed.", "C002's permission-adjusted focused-test rerun changed the outcome from blocked to passing and is a clear productive retry counterexample.", "C008, C014, C016, C020, C021, C022, and others contain later review reruns after actual fixes that produced new findings or approval.", "Several individual process failures supplied actionable error information and were correctly excluded; only exact duplicate or unchanged-state intervals remain.", "No outcome-sidecar field measures the incremental token/time effect of each bounded interval, so only structural cost, not an effect size, is claimed." ], "counterfactual_prediction": "If recovery behavior required a verified state delta or a different recovery branch before re-entering the same target, exact duplicate failures, unchanged review reruns, and timeout-only polling sequences should fall while productive retries after edits, permission changes, or new child state remain. If total repeats fall only because recovery stops prematurely or completion regresses, the hypothesis is not supported.", "confidence": "medium", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-45-21-019fe544-d73d-7381-91d4-2660f7b4899c.jsonl#L83", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-45-21-019fe544-d73d-7381-91d4-2660f7b4899c.jsonl#L87", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T12-22-17-019fe4c1-dc0c-78d1-81ed-ed842ebd87ba.jsonl#L243", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-26-34-019fe533-a286-7013-948e-f668c8616cc6.jsonl#L82", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T17-33-16-019fe5de-8fd4-7690-8160-7e7160b0d946.jsonl#L356", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-44-06-019fe57a-a0f5-7330-81bb-a99128672dbc.jsonl#L84", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-44-06-019fe57a-a0f5-7330-81bb-a99128672dbc.jsonl#L89", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-53-56-019fe54c-b17e-7591-906b-02ab54ddbd42.jsonl#L254", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-43-23-019fe543-07fd-7681-b341-ed845188dfe5.jsonl#L50", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-43-23-019fe543-07fd-7681-b341-ed845188dfe5.jsonl#L54", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T13-34-21-019fe503-d6d4-79b3-b076-b09188ef5b19.jsonl#L236", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T13-34-21-019fe503-d6d4-79b3-b076-b09188ef5b19.jsonl#L291" ] } ], "unresolved_patterns": [ { "pattern_id": "U-01", "occurrence_cells": [ "C002" ], "pattern": "Proposal, delta-spec, and tasks segments each ended without running focused tests even though their per-session instruction said to run focused tests before finishing.", "why_unresolved": "The same cell later ran the focused suite successfully and completed with 100/100 Judge scores. Evidence also says focused Cargo execution was understood as belonging to implementation. This could be downstream instruction overbreadth or stage/session wording, but one cell cannot distinguish a Harness contract defect from a Luna interpretation of a workflow-wide obligation as segment-local.", "candidate_attributions": [ "downstream_instruction_ambiguity", "workflow_stage_semantics", "not_harness_attributable" ], "confidence": "low", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-09-52-019fe524-5a77-79b1-9e62-a29c07976b38.jsonl#L7", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-34-58-019fe53b-52d6-7b72-a2b9-c682b0b879ee.jsonl#L89" ] }, { "pattern_id": "U-02", "occurrence_cells": [ "C019" ], "pattern": "Proposal generation and implementation began without the separately required user generation-approval interaction.", "why_unresolved": "The controller payload explicitly required approval, but the same user payload broadly instructed the candidate to produce/implement the current work. The cell completed with focused tests and 100/100 Judges. This may expose conflicting authorization signals in H0, or may be a task-specific instruction-adherence lapse; there is no cross-run support in the frozen batch.", "candidate_attributions": [ "instruction_conflict", "workflow_approval_semantics", "model_stochasticity" ], "confidence": "low", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09-019fe51f-e0ab-72a0-8cb9-5249e24715eb.jsonl#L43", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-34-54-019fe53b-43df-77b1-aca3-7917cacb95fc.jsonl#L7" ] }, { "pattern_id": "U-03", "occurrence_cells": [ "C024" ], "pattern": "Chinese user-facing replies violated a loaded English-language obligation in proposal, tasks, and validation stages.", "why_unresolved": "The recurrence is intra-cell and had no observed artifact, test, completion, or Judge impact; artifacts and final handoffs were English. With no second run/task occurrence, model stochasticity or local dialogue conditioning is at least as plausible as a Harness information-flow weakness.", "candidate_attributions": [ "model_stochasticity", "instruction_priority_or_context", "not_harness_attributable" ], "confidence": "low", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08-09/rollout-2026-08-09T13-04-54-019fe4e8-dfbc-78f3-8cca-b0440ac3661e.jsonl#L13", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08-09/rollout-2026-08-09T13-20-22-019fe4f7-07a4-7ec3-bc35-1f9b42bb358a.jsonl#L13", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08-09/rollout-2026-08-09T13-26-33-019fe4fc-b0fb-7d01-99c0-b1c17c723f0c.jsonl#L13" ] }, { "pattern_id": "U-04", "occurrence_cells": [ "C003", "C004", "C005", "C006", "C008", "C013", "C014", "C015", "C016", "C017", "C020", "C021", "C023" ], "pattern": "Specific product, compatibility, documentation, naming, typing, and static-check defects were omitted in individual implementations.", "why_unresolved": "These defects support W-02 only as evidence that obligation-specific proof was absent before completion. Their technical causes remain task-specific and may be upstream artifact quality, task difficulty, model stochasticity, unavailable tooling, or ordinary coding error. The evidence does not justify attributing the product defects themselves to one Harness mechanism.", "candidate_attributions": [ "task_specific_difficulty", "model_stochasticity", "upstream_quality", "not_harness_attributable" ], "confidence": "low", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-48-30-019fe547-b99d-7da0-9bb3-7985dc2993ce.jsonl#L402", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T12-11-02-019fe4b7-8f7b-7dc3-a3c0-aabe3aec5254.jsonl#L118", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-17-51-019fe562-96dc-75b0-a5f1-83784632c893.jsonl#L207", "raw-sessions/reviewer/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T15-18-44-019fe563-671f-7d63-8633-35eecca96956.jsonl#L114" ] }, { "pattern_id": "U-05", "occurrence_cells": [ "C016", "C017", "C018" ], "pattern": "Accepted obligations were weakened or made inconsistent while moving through proposal, design, tasks, and validation artifacts.", "why_unresolved": "This may be an upstream information-preservation weakness separate from W-02, but the three cells belong to one task family and many revisions were operator-driven or corrected before implementation. Cross-task support is insufficient to distinguish a systemic handoff defect from task-specific complexity.", "candidate_attributions": [ "Information Flow", "Artifact", "task_specific_difficulty" ], "confidence": "low", "raw_refs": [ "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-05-26-019fe520-4890-7823-9b77-88e93a80410d.jsonl#L173", "raw-sessions/validator/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-44-45-019fe544-4971-7cc1-ab5a-f18db5eac197.jsonl#L101", "raw-sessions/candidate/2026/08/09/rollout-2026-08-09T14-38-35-019fe53e-a4d9-7fd2-965c-2a03ab4fa5a0.jsonl#L202" ] } ], "boundary": "This artifact is a Root Cause shortlist only. It contains no Proposal Card, mutation, patch, target file, or implementation recommendation. All hypotheses remain falsifiable and require a later controlled intervention to establish causality." }