schemaVersion: 1 analysis: parentHarness: H02 generation: H02 analysisRunId: h02-agent-analysis-20260811-a stableNamespace: H02/h02-agent-analysis-20260811-a authorityClass: agent-derived-candidate-not-user-confirmed method: >- Read-only inspection of the 24 selected formal H02 cells, controller stage events, terminal receipts, focused-verification outputs, review artifacts, H02 generation descriptor, and the v2 evolution harness responsibility chain. This is not the fixed Luna/Sol Root Cause pipeline used for H1. primaryView: denominator: 24 selected valid_behavior cells aggregate: workflowCompleted: 17 focusedTestsPassed: 19 judgeOutputs: 48 judgeMean: 94.4791666667 selectedCandidateTokens: 247515656 recovery: runsWithNaturalBackOrRecheck: 13 backtracks: 41 backThenDoneRuns: 6 maxBacktrackFailures: 7 weaknesses: - weakness_id: W-01 stable_ref: H02/h02-agent-analysis-20260811-a/W-01 title: Repair re-entry loses the structured blocker context first_divergence: >- Review produces blocker IDs and an earlier repairTarget, but the controller persists the back transition using only arena: and then starts the target stage with the generic stage payload and feature request. The next Candidate turn is not given the exact blocker set, review artifact, or a per-blocker closure request. hypothesis: >- H02 made the repair owner reachable but did not carry the semantic repair context across that transition. A fresh implementation/tasks actor therefore has to rediscover the Review findings, allowing reachable recovery to become a repeated loop over unchanged evidence. attribution: - Information Flow - Recovery - Agent Responsibility support: workflowFailedCells: 7 affectedTasks: 5 repeatedBlockerFingerprintCells: 7 repeatedImplementationProjectionCells: 6 observed: >- Every H02 workflow_failed cell stopped at max-backtracks. All seven repeated at least one identical blocker fingerprint; six also re-accepted an unchanged implementation product-projection digest during recovery. alternatives: - The product changes were genuinely difficult and four retries were insufficient. - A repeated blocker ID may remain valid even when partial repair progress occurred. - Candidate stochasticity may dominate the missing explicit handoff. counterevidence: - Six runs used back/recheck and still reached done. - Some failed runs changed product projection or blocker set before exhausting the budget. - The Review artifact remains present in the worktree and can be rediscovered manually. counterfactual_prediction: >- If the exact Review blocker context is handed to the repair actor, repeated identical blocker fingerprints and unchanged implementation digests should fall without suppressing productive retries. If the same loops remain, the missing handoff is not the primary cause. confidence: high status: agent-derived-falsifiable-candidate - weakness_id: W-02 stable_ref: H02/h02-agent-analysis-20260811-a/W-02 title: Review approval is not bound to controller-owned verification truth first_divergence: >- After implementation, the controller writes focused-verification.json and records focusedVerificationPassed=false, but formal Review confirmation checks the Reviewer-authored verdict shape rather than requiring the controller receipt to pass. An approved YAML verdict can therefore complete the stage while the authoritative focused command is red. hypothesis: >- H02 moved independent verification responsibility into Review, but kept the positive decision prompt-governed instead of evidence-bound. This permits the Reviewer to replace a controller-owned failure with an unsupported alternate explanation and create a false workflow terminal. attribution: - Verification - Workflow - Evidence Authority support: implementationAcceptsWithFocusedFalse: 29 affectedRuns: 8 affectedTasks: 4 falseCompletedCells: - h02-prometheus-utf8-negotiation-r1-attempt-01 - h02-prometheus-utf8-negotiation-r3-attempt-01 observed: >- Both false-completed cells ended with focusedTestsPassed=false. The controller-owned hidden test output showed 8/8 failures in r1 and 4/8 failures in r3, while both Review artifacts declared Approved and attributed the red receipt to a loopback-sandbox issue that was absent from the actual hidden-test failure output. alternatives: - A Reviewer may legitimately override an infrastructure-caused false-negative receipt. - The two observed false terminals are confined to one task family. - The external Judge, rather than workflow completion, may be the intended quality guard. counterevidence: - Most H02 completed cells also passed focused verification. - Several false implementation receipts were later repaired or ended workflow_failed. - Review correctly rejected many other red or incomplete evidence states. counterfactual_prediction: >- If positive Review confirmation requires the exact current controller receipt to have passed, these two cells cannot become workflowCompleted. A future comparable run may repair and pass or terminate blocked, but must not approve the same red evidence. confidence: high status: agent-derived-falsifiable-candidate - weakness_id: W-03 stable_ref: H02/h02-agent-analysis-20260811-a/W-03 title: Review evaluates full documents before controller finalization updates them first_divergence: >- The H02 Review checker lists full spec.md and design.md as evidence inputs, but the harness invokes finalization only after all required stage confirmations, including Review, are already complete. hypothesis: >- Review is asked to decide over a pre-finalization document state while the final authoritative documents are produced afterward and are never independently reviewed. This inverts the intended SDD acceptance boundary and can make a full-document blocker impossible to close through the advertised stage order. attribution: - Artifact - Workflow - Verification support: structuralEvidence: generation descriptor plus harness finalization order observedCells: - h02-pytest-addini-type-expressions-r1-attempt-01 observed: >- The D4 r1 terminal blocker set explicitly included full-spec-and-design-not-finalized while recovery was routed to earlier stages. alternatives: - Candidate implementation may proactively update the full documents before Review. - Post-Review matspec done checks can still guarantee that finalization files changed. - The Reviewer may only need to inspect the pre-finalization baseline plus deltas. counterevidence: - All 17 workflow-completed cells reached non-force done/archive. - The aggregate does not establish that post-Review full documents were semantically wrong. counterfactual_prediction: >- If finalization occurs before the final Review decision, Review should inspect the actual archive-bound full documents and full-document-not-finalized blockers should no longer require an indirect implementation repair loop. confidence: medium status: agent-derived-falsifiable-candidate confirmation: status: pending-user-review confirmedWeaknesses: [] note: Card generation was requested, but card content has not yet been adopted as a formal Root Cause conclusion. authorizationBoundary: cardGenerationAuthorized: true proposalSelectionAuthorized: false implementationAuthorized: false newExperimentAuthorized: false