trail-observability-gateway

Summary: A observability repository organized as a worker-based pipeline.

A reliability review asks the agent to address a case where dependency free fix appears in the observability workflow after a duplicate event delivery, and the relationship between the notification dispatcher and template renderer is not yet proven. Work in `trail-observability-gateway`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Laravel trace: notification dispatcher completed before template renderer validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-055-20: behavior changes after a duplicate event delivery.

The focused case fails only after a duplicate event delivery and passes when template renderer is bypassed.

The core issue is dependency free fix: the notification dispatcher establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the template renderer consumes that state after a duplicate event delivery. The failure becomes observable in the observability workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

app/Services/WorkflowService.php defines the initiating behavior, app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php owns the decision, and app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php is the nearest verification boundary.

One observation must discriminate the notification dispatcher from the template renderer.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the notification dispatcher and template renderer; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported observability behavior.

Question: dependency free fix

Evidence tied to app/Services/WorkflowService.php, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php, not a generic confirmation.

Context: after a duplicate event delivery

Evidence tied to app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php, not a generic confirmation.

`app/Services/WorkflowService.php` creates or forwards the state involved in dependency free fix.

`app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` applies an assumption that is invalid after a duplicate event delivery.

`app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Change the decision boundary in `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` so ownership and scope are explicit between the notification dispatcher and template renderer.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/Services/WorkflowService.php`, `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`, and `app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused PHPUnit case that reproduces the condition after a duplicate event delivery.

Run the focused test `test_dependency_free_fix_20` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with PHPUnit.

Run the existing Composer static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case after a duplicate event delivery.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` and `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the notification dispatcher establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the template renderer consumes that state after a duplicate event delivery. the failure becomes observable in the observability workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php` that reproduces the condition after a duplicate event delivery. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the template renderer and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A reliability review asks the agent to address a case where dependency free fix appears in the observability workflow after a duplicate event delivery, and the relationship between the notification dispatcher and template renderer is not yet proven. Work in `trail-observability-gateway`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` and `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the notification dispatcher establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the template renderer consumes that state after a duplicate event delivery. the failure becomes observable in the observability workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php` that reproduces the condition after a duplicate event delivery. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


vector-data-pipelines-gateway

Summary: A data pipelines repository organized as a multi-tenant SaaS.

The task appears simple, yet the system context shows that dependency free fix appears in the data pipelines workflow with a stale session token, and the relationship between the search indexer and change-data-capture stream is not yet proven. Work in `vector-data-pipelines-gateway`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with Rust and Axum. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Use the existing test and build toolchain.

Do not assume access to production systems.

Axum trace: search indexer completed before change-data-capture stream validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-055-21: behavior changes with a stale session token.

The focused case fails only with a stale session token and passes when change-data-capture stream is bypassed.

src/workers/consumer.rs defines the initiating behavior, src/security/policy.rs owns the decision, and tests/workflow.rs is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is dependency free fix: the search indexer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the change-data-capture stream consumes that state with a stale session token. The failure becomes observable in the data pipelines workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the search indexer from the change-data-capture stream.

Destructive database or filesystem operations.

Broad dependency upgrades unrelated to the failure.

Claims about production state without access.

Disabling tests, retries, authorization, or error reporting.

This is primarily a `Safe Modification` task. The agent should first establish whether `dependency free fix` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the search indexer and change-data-capture stream; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported data pipelines behavior.

No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence.

Identify contracts, state invariants, and rollback requirements.

Prefer the smallest change that corrects the mechanism.

Preserve compatibility and avoid unrelated cleanup.

Review the diff for security, data, and operational side effects.

Question: dependency free fix

Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about dependency free fix.

Evidence tied to src/workers/consumer.rs, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/security/policy.rs, not a generic confirmation.

Context: with a stale session token

Evidence tied to tests/workflow.rs, not a generic confirmation.

`src/workers/consumer.rs` creates or forwards the state involved in dependency free fix.

`src/security/policy.rs` applies an assumption that is invalid with a stale session token.

`tests/workflow.rs` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties dependency free fix to `src/security/policy.rs` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/security/policy.rs` so ownership and scope are explicit between the search indexer and change-data-capture stream.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/workers/consumer.rs`, `src/security/policy.rs`, and `tests/workflow.rs` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused cargo test case that reproduces the condition with a stale session token.

Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch.

Run the focused test `test_dependency_free_fix_21` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with cargo test.

Run the existing Cargo static or build checks used by the repository.

Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case with a stale session token.

The focused failure is reproduced before the change and resolved afterward.

Relevant regression and build checks pass.

The final response states remaining uncertainty and does not overclaim.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/workers/consumer.rs` and `src/security/policy.rs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the search indexer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the change-data-capture stream consumes that state with a stale session token. the failure becomes observable in the data pipelines workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/security/policy.rs`, plus a focused test in `tests/workflow.rs` that reproduces the condition with a stale session token. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the change-data-capture stream and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

It treats a hypothesis as fact, expands blast radius, and skips evidence and compatibility checks.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/security/policy.rs` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

It invents access and certainty that the task context does not provide.

Distinguish verified evidence from assumptions.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/workers/consumer.rs` and `src/security/policy.rs`.

Define a failure-focused verification step.

Keep the proposed change bounded and reversible.

Invent files, logs, production access, or test results.

Apply a broad refactor before isolating the mechanism.

Hide uncertainty or claim success without verification.

Weaken security, tenant isolation, or compatibility to make the test pass.

A different tool order is acceptable when each action is justified by the previous observation.

An alternative patch is acceptable when it preserves the same contracts and verifies the same failure mechanism.

The agent may stop and escalate when required evidence cannot be derived safely.

The response jumps directly to code with no repository or evidence reasoning.

The response fabricates tool output or successful verification.

The proposed change violates a stated constraint.

The response addresses only the surface symptom and leaves the causal mechanism unchanged.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] The task appears simple, yet the system context shows that dependency free fix appears in the data pipelines workflow with a stale session token, and the relationship between the search indexer and change-data-capture stream is not yet proven. Work in `vector-data-pipelines-gateway`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with Rust and Axum. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/workers/consumer.rs` and `src/security/policy.rs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the search indexer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the change-data-capture stream consumes that state with a stale session token. the failure becomes observable in the data pipelines workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/security/policy.rs`, plus a focused test in `tests/workflow.rs` that reproduces the condition with a stale session token. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Machine-generated and machine-audited; not a substitute for expert human review.


watch-feature-management-gateway

Summary: A feature management repository organized as a API gateway architecture.

A recent refactor changed the conditions under which evidence from the rate limiter conflicts with assumptions made by the distributed counter, producing dependency free fix when configuration is hot-reloaded. Work in `watch-feature-management-gateway`, a API gateway architecture implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Keep the change reversible within one deployment.

Ktor trace: rate limiter completed before distributed counter validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-055-22: behavior changes when configuration is hot-reloaded.

The focused case fails only when configuration is hot-reloaded and passes when distributed counter is bypassed.

src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt defines the initiating behavior, src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt owns the decision, and src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is dependency free fix: the rate limiter establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the distributed counter consumes that state when configuration is hot-reloaded. The failure becomes observable in the feature management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the rate limiter from the distributed counter.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the rate limiter and distributed counter; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported feature management behavior.

Question: dependency free fix

Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt, not a generic confirmation.

Context: when configuration is hot-reloaded

Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt, not a generic confirmation.

`src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` creates or forwards the state involved in dependency free fix.

`src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` applies an assumption that is invalid when configuration is hot-reloaded.

`src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties dependency free fix to `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` so ownership and scope are explicit between the rate limiter and distributed counter.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt`, `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`, and `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Kotest case that reproduces the condition when configuration is hot-reloaded.

Run the focused test `test_dependency_free_fix_22` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Kotest.

Run the existing Gradle static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when configuration is hot-reloaded.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` and `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the rate limiter establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the distributed counter consumes that state when configuration is hot-reloaded. the failure becomes observable in the feature management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` that reproduces the condition when configuration is hot-reloaded. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the distributed counter and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` and `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A recent refactor changed the conditions under which evidence from the rate limiter conflicts with assumptions made by the distributed counter, producing dependency free fix when configuration is hot-reloaded. Work in `watch-feature-management-gateway`, a API gateway architecture implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` and `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the rate limiter establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the distributed counter consumes that state when configuration is hot-reloaded. the failure becomes observable in the feature management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` that reproduces the condition when configuration is hot-reloaded. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


engine-cybersecurity-operations-gateway

Summary: A cybersecurity operations repository organized as a batch processing system.

A security review requires careful handling because the team cannot safely complete the cybersecurity operations change because dependency free fix remains unresolved under high-cardinality traffic. Work in `engine-cybersecurity-operations-gateway`, a batch processing system implemented with Ruby and Rails. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Separate observed facts from hypotheses.

Rails trace: validation layer completed before normalization pipeline validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-055-23: behavior changes under high-cardinality traffic.

The focused case fails only under high-cardinality traffic and passes when normalization pipeline is bypassed.

spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb defines the initiating behavior, config/routes.rb owns the decision, and app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is dependency free fix: the validation layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the normalization pipeline consumes that state under high-cardinality traffic. The failure becomes observable in the cybersecurity operations workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the validation layer from the normalization pipeline.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the validation layer and normalization pipeline; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported cybersecurity operations behavior.

Question: dependency free fix

Evidence tied to spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to config/routes.rb, not a generic confirmation.

Context: under high-cardinality traffic

Evidence tied to app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb, not a generic confirmation.

`spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb` creates or forwards the state involved in dependency free fix.

`config/routes.rb` applies an assumption that is invalid under high-cardinality traffic.

`app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties dependency free fix to `config/routes.rb` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `config/routes.rb` so ownership and scope are explicit between the validation layer and normalization pipeline.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb`, `config/routes.rb`, and `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused RSpec case that reproduces the condition under high-cardinality traffic.

Run the focused test `test_dependency_free_fix_23` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with RSpec.

Run the existing Bundler static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case under high-cardinality traffic.

I traced the task to the interaction between `spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb` and `config/routes.rb`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the validation layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the normalization pipeline consumes that state under high-cardinality traffic. the failure becomes observable in the cybersecurity operations workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `config/routes.rb`, plus a focused test in `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` that reproduces the condition under high-cardinality traffic. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the normalization pipeline and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `config/routes.rb` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb` and `config/routes.rb`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A security review requires careful handling because the team cannot safely complete the cybersecurity operations change because dependency free fix remains unresolved under high-cardinality traffic. Work in `engine-cybersecurity-operations-gateway`, a batch processing system implemented with Ruby and Rails. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb` and `config/routes.rb`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the validation layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the normalization pipeline consumes that state under high-cardinality traffic. the failure becomes observable in the cybersecurity operations workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `config/routes.rb`, plus a focused test in `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` that reproduces the condition under high-cardinality traffic. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


gateway-workflow-automation-gateway

Summary: A workflow automation repository organized as a plugin-oriented application.

A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why the workflow automation system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes dependency free fix when a client omits a recently added field. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Stop before any irreversible operation unless evidence is sufficient.

Keep retries and idempotency semantics intact.

Preserve backward compatibility with existing records.

CMake service trace: release orchestrator completed before deployment manifest validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-055-24: behavior changes when a client omits a recently added field.

The focused case fails only when a client omits a recently added field and passes when deployment manifest is bypassed.

src/http/routes.cpp defines the initiating behavior, src/core/workflow.cpp owns the decision, and src/data/repository.cpp is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is dependency free fix: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. The failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the release orchestrator from the deployment manifest.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the release orchestrator and deployment manifest; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported workflow automation behavior.

Question: dependency free fix

Evidence tied to src/http/routes.cpp, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/core/workflow.cpp, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/data/repository.cpp, not a generic confirmation.

`src/http/routes.cpp` creates or forwards the state involved in dependency free fix.

`src/core/workflow.cpp` applies an assumption that is invalid when a client omits a recently added field.

`src/data/repository.cpp` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties dependency free fix to `src/core/workflow.cpp` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/core/workflow.cpp` so ownership and scope are explicit between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/http/routes.cpp`, `src/core/workflow.cpp`, and `src/data/repository.cpp` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Catch2 case that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field.

Run the focused test `test_dependency_free_fix_24` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Catch2.

Run the existing CMake static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when a client omits a recently added field.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/core/workflow.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/data/repository.cpp` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the deployment manifest and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/core/workflow.cpp` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why the workflow automation system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes dependency free fix when a client omits a recently added field. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `dependency free fix` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is dependency free fix: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/core/workflow.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/data/repository.cpp` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


ledger-payments-service

Summary: A payments repository organized as a modular monolith.

A support escalation reports the payments system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes regression suite design after a warm-cache transition. Work in `ledger-payments-service`, a modular monolith implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

FastAPI trace: request router completed before domain service validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-00: behavior changes after a warm-cache transition.

The focused case fails only after a warm-cache transition and passes when domain service is bypassed.

app/api/routes.py defines the initiating behavior, app/services/core.py owns the decision, and app/repositories/store.py is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. The failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the request router from the domain service.

This is primarily a `Verification and Testing` task. The agent should first establish whether `regression suite design` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the request router and domain service; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported payments behavior.

Translate the failure mechanism into a focused test.

Add adjacent regression checks for the affected contract.

Run the narrow checks first, then the justified broader suite.

Stop only when behavior, constraints, and rollback expectations are verified.

Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about regression suite design.

Evidence tied to app/api/routes.py, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/services/core.py, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/repositories/store.py, not a generic confirmation.

`app/api/routes.py` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`app/services/core.py` applies an assumption that is invalid after a warm-cache transition.

`app/repositories/store.py` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `app/services/core.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/services/core.py` so ownership and scope are explicit between the request router and domain service.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/api/routes.py`, `app/services/core.py`, and `app/repositories/store.py` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused pytest case that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_00` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with pytest.

Run the existing uv static or build checks used by the repository.

Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case after a warm-cache transition.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/api/routes.py` and `app/services/core.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. the failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/services/core.py`, plus a focused test in `app/repositories/store.py` that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the domain service and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `app/services/core.py` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/api/routes.py` and `app/services/core.py`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A support escalation reports the payments system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes regression suite design after a warm-cache transition. Work in `ledger-payments-service`, a modular monolith implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `app/api/routes.py` and `app/services/core.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. the failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/services/core.py`, plus a focused test in `app/repositories/store.py` that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


relay-healthcare-scheduling-service

Summary: A healthcare scheduling repository organized as a event-driven services.

An engineer observed the team cannot safely complete the healthcare scheduling change because regression suite design remains unresolved under two concurrent requests. Work in `relay-healthcare-scheduling-service`, a event-driven services implemented with Python and Django. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Limit the patch to the smallest responsible scope.

Django trace: API handler completed before repository adapter validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-01: behavior changes under two concurrent requests.

The focused case fails only under two concurrent requests and passes when repository adapter is bypassed.

app/views.py defines the initiating behavior, app/services.py owns the decision, and app/models.py is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the API handler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the repository adapter consumes that state under two concurrent requests. The failure becomes observable in the healthcare scheduling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the API handler from the repository adapter.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the API handler and repository adapter; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported healthcare scheduling behavior.

Evidence tied to app/views.py, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/services.py, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/models.py, not a generic confirmation.

`app/views.py` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`app/services.py` applies an assumption that is invalid under two concurrent requests.

`app/models.py` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `app/services.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/services.py` so ownership and scope are explicit between the API handler and repository adapter.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/views.py`, `app/services.py`, and `app/models.py` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused pytest-django case that reproduces the condition under two concurrent requests.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_01` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with pytest-django.

Run the existing pip static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case under two concurrent requests.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/views.py` and `app/services.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the api handler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the repository adapter consumes that state under two concurrent requests. the failure becomes observable in the healthcare scheduling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/services.py`, plus a focused test in `app/models.py` that reproduces the condition under two concurrent requests. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the repository adapter and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `app/services.py` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/views.py` and `app/services.py`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] An engineer observed the team cannot safely complete the healthcare scheduling change because regression suite design remains unresolved under two concurrent requests. Work in `relay-healthcare-scheduling-service`, a event-driven services implemented with Python and Django. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `app/views.py` and `app/services.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the api handler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the repository adapter consumes that state under two concurrent requests. the failure becomes observable in the healthcare scheduling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/services.py`, plus a focused test in `app/models.py` that reproduces the condition under two concurrent requests. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


atlas-developer-tooling-service

Summary: A developer tooling repository organized as a service-repository application.

The latest release exposed a pattern: a proposed fix for regression suite design would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs during a rolling deployment. Work in `atlas-developer-tooling-service`, a service-repository application implemented with TypeScript and Node.js. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Do not suppress errors without explaining their cause.

Node.js trace: background worker completed before event consumer validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-02: behavior changes during a rolling deployment.

The focused case fails only during a rolling deployment and passes when event consumer is bypassed.

src/data/repository.ts defines the initiating behavior, src/workers/consumer.ts owns the decision, and src/security/policy.ts is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the background worker establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the event consumer consumes that state during a rolling deployment. The failure becomes observable in the developer tooling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the background worker from the event consumer.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the background worker and event consumer; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported developer tooling behavior.

Evidence tied to src/data/repository.ts, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/workers/consumer.ts, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/security/policy.ts, not a generic confirmation.

`src/data/repository.ts` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`src/workers/consumer.ts` applies an assumption that is invalid during a rolling deployment.

`src/security/policy.ts` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `src/workers/consumer.ts` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/workers/consumer.ts` so ownership and scope are explicit between the background worker and event consumer.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/data/repository.ts`, `src/workers/consumer.ts`, and `src/security/policy.ts` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Vitest case that reproduces the condition during a rolling deployment.

Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_02` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Vitest.

Run the existing pnpm static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case during a rolling deployment.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/data/repository.ts` and `src/workers/consumer.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the background worker establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the event consumer consumes that state during a rolling deployment. the failure becomes observable in the developer tooling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/workers/consumer.ts`, plus a focused test in `src/security/policy.ts` that reproduces the condition during a rolling deployment. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the event consumer and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/workers/consumer.ts` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/data/repository.ts` and `src/workers/consumer.ts`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] The latest release exposed a pattern: a proposed fix for regression suite design would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs during a rolling deployment. Work in `atlas-developer-tooling-service`, a service-repository application implemented with TypeScript and Node.js. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/data/repository.ts` and `src/workers/consumer.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the background worker establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the event consumer consumes that state during a rolling deployment. the failure becomes observable in the developer tooling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/workers/consumer.ts`, plus a focused test in `src/security/policy.ts` that reproduces the condition during a rolling deployment. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


harbor-identity-management-service

Summary: A identity management repository organized as a microservice platform.

A reproducible test now shows evidence from the session middleware conflicts with assumptions made by the identity store, producing regression suite design at a daylight-saving boundary. Work in `harbor-identity-management-service`, a microservice platform implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Do not expose secrets, tokens, or production data.

React trace: session middleware completed before identity store validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-03: behavior changes at a daylight-saving boundary.

The focused case fails only at a daylight-saving boundary and passes when identity store is bypassed.

src/components/Workflow.tsx defines the initiating behavior, src/auth/session.ts owns the decision, and tests/workflow.spec.ts is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the session middleware establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the identity store consumes that state at a daylight-saving boundary. The failure becomes observable in the identity management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the session middleware from the identity store.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the session middleware and identity store; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported identity management behavior.

Evidence tied to src/components/Workflow.tsx, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/auth/session.ts, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to tests/workflow.spec.ts, not a generic confirmation.

`src/components/Workflow.tsx` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`src/auth/session.ts` applies an assumption that is invalid at a daylight-saving boundary.

`tests/workflow.spec.ts` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `src/auth/session.ts` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/auth/session.ts` so ownership and scope are explicit between the session middleware and identity store.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/components/Workflow.tsx`, `src/auth/session.ts`, and `tests/workflow.spec.ts` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Playwright case that reproduces the condition at a daylight-saving boundary.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_03` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Playwright.

Run the existing Vite static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case at a daylight-saving boundary.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/components/Workflow.tsx` and `src/auth/session.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the session middleware establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the identity store consumes that state at a daylight-saving boundary. the failure becomes observable in the identity management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/auth/session.ts`, plus a focused test in `tests/workflow.spec.ts` that reproduces the condition at a daylight-saving boundary. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the identity store and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/auth/session.ts` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/components/Workflow.tsx` and `src/auth/session.ts`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A reproducible test now shows evidence from the session middleware conflicts with assumptions made by the identity store, producing regression suite design at a daylight-saving boundary. Work in `harbor-identity-management-service`, a microservice platform implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/components/Workflow.tsx` and `src/auth/session.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the session middleware establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the identity store consumes that state at a daylight-saving boundary. the failure becomes observable in the identity management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/auth/session.ts`, plus a focused test in `tests/workflow.spec.ts` that reproduces the condition at a daylight-saving boundary. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


forge-e-commerce-service

Summary: A e-commerce repository organized as a serverless workflow.

Operational telemetry suggests the team cannot safely complete the e-commerce change because regression suite design remains unresolved when retries overlap. Work in `forge-e-commerce-service`, a serverless workflow implemented with Java and Spring Boot. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Spring Boot trace: cache layer completed before database gateway validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-04: behavior changes when retries overlap.

The focused case fails only when retries overlap and passes when database gateway is bypassed.

src/main/java/app/SecurityPolicy.java defines the initiating behavior, src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java owns the decision, and src/main/java/app/Controller.java is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the cache layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the database gateway consumes that state when retries overlap. The failure becomes observable in the e-commerce workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the cache layer from the database gateway.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the cache layer and database gateway; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported e-commerce behavior.

No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence.

Evidence tied to src/main/java/app/SecurityPolicy.java, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/main/java/app/Controller.java, not a generic confirmation.

`src/main/java/app/SecurityPolicy.java` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` applies an assumption that is invalid when retries overlap.

`src/main/java/app/Controller.java` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` so ownership and scope are explicit between the cache layer and database gateway.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/main/java/app/SecurityPolicy.java`, `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java`, and `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused JUnit case that reproduces the condition when retries overlap.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_04` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with JUnit.

Run the existing Gradle static or build checks used by the repository.

Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when retries overlap.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/java/app/SecurityPolicy.java` and `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the cache layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the database gateway consumes that state when retries overlap. the failure becomes observable in the e-commerce workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java`, plus a focused test in `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` that reproduces the condition when retries overlap. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the database gateway and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/main/java/app/SecurityPolicy.java` and `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] Operational telemetry suggests the team cannot safely complete the e-commerce change because regression suite design remains unresolved when retries overlap. Work in `forge-e-commerce-service`, a serverless workflow implemented with Java and Spring Boot. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/java/app/SecurityPolicy.java` and `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the cache layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the database gateway consumes that state when retries overlap. the failure becomes observable in the e-commerce workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java`, plus a focused test in `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` that reproduces the condition when retries overlap. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


signal-logistics-service

Summary: A logistics repository organized as a worker-based pipeline.

A code review uncovered a risk: the logistics system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes regression suite design with legacy records created before the last migration. Work in `signal-logistics-service`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with Go and Chi. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Chi trace: scheduler completed before job executor validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-05: behavior changes with legacy records created before the last migration.

The focused case fails only with legacy records created before the last migration and passes when job executor is bypassed.

internal/service/core_test.go defines the initiating behavior, internal/http/routes.go owns the decision, and internal/service/core.go is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the scheduler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the job executor consumes that state with legacy records created before the last migration. The failure becomes observable in the logistics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the scheduler from the job executor.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the scheduler and job executor; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported logistics behavior.

Evidence tied to internal/service/core_test.go, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to internal/http/routes.go, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to internal/service/core.go, not a generic confirmation.

`internal/service/core_test.go` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`internal/http/routes.go` applies an assumption that is invalid with legacy records created before the last migration.

`internal/service/core.go` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `internal/http/routes.go` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `internal/http/routes.go` so ownership and scope are explicit between the scheduler and job executor.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `internal/service/core_test.go`, `internal/http/routes.go`, and `internal/service/core.go` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused go test case that reproduces the condition with legacy records created before the last migration.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_05` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with go test.

Run the existing Go modules static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case with legacy records created before the last migration.

I traced the task to the interaction between `internal/service/core_test.go` and `internal/http/routes.go`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the scheduler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the job executor consumes that state with legacy records created before the last migration. the failure becomes observable in the logistics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `internal/http/routes.go`, plus a focused test in `internal/service/core.go` that reproduces the condition with legacy records created before the last migration. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the job executor and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `internal/http/routes.go` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `internal/service/core_test.go` and `internal/http/routes.go`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A code review uncovered a risk: the logistics system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes regression suite design with legacy records created before the last migration. Work in `signal-logistics-service`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with Go and Chi. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `internal/service/core_test.go` and `internal/http/routes.go`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the scheduler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the job executor consumes that state with legacy records created before the last migration. the failure becomes observable in the logistics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `internal/http/routes.go`, plus a focused test in `internal/service/core.go` that reproduces the condition with legacy records created before the last migration. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


orbit-collaboration-software-service

Summary: A collaboration software repository organized as a multi-tenant SaaS.

The team needs a grounded investigation because the collaboration software system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes regression suite design immediately after a feature flag changes. Work in `orbit-collaboration-software-service`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with C# and ASP.NET Core. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

ASP.NET Core trace: serializer completed before public API contract validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-06: behavior changes immediately after a feature flag changes.

The focused case fails only immediately after a feature flag changes and passes when public API contract is bypassed.

Api/Controllers/WorkflowController.cs defines the initiating behavior, Core/WorkflowService.cs owns the decision, and Data/WorkflowRepository.cs is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the serializer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the public API contract consumes that state immediately after a feature flag changes. The failure becomes observable in the collaboration software workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the serializer from the public API contract.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the serializer and public API contract; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported collaboration software behavior.

Evidence tied to Api/Controllers/WorkflowController.cs, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to Core/WorkflowService.cs, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to Data/WorkflowRepository.cs, not a generic confirmation.

`Api/Controllers/WorkflowController.cs` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`Core/WorkflowService.cs` applies an assumption that is invalid immediately after a feature flag changes.

`Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `Core/WorkflowService.cs` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `Core/WorkflowService.cs` so ownership and scope are explicit between the serializer and public API contract.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `Api/Controllers/WorkflowController.cs`, `Core/WorkflowService.cs`, and `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused xUnit case that reproduces the condition immediately after a feature flag changes.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_06` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with xUnit.

Run the existing dotnet static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case immediately after a feature flag changes.

I traced the task to the interaction between `Api/Controllers/WorkflowController.cs` and `Core/WorkflowService.cs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the serializer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the public api contract consumes that state immediately after a feature flag changes. the failure becomes observable in the collaboration software workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `Core/WorkflowService.cs`, plus a focused test in `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` that reproduces the condition immediately after a feature flag changes. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the public API contract and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `Core/WorkflowService.cs` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `Api/Controllers/WorkflowController.cs` and `Core/WorkflowService.cs`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] The team needs a grounded investigation because the collaboration software system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes regression suite design immediately after a feature flag changes. Work in `orbit-collaboration-software-service`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with C# and ASP.NET Core. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `Api/Controllers/WorkflowController.cs` and `Core/WorkflowService.cs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the serializer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the public api contract consumes that state immediately after a feature flag changes. the failure becomes observable in the collaboration software workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `Core/WorkflowService.cs`, plus a focused test in `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` that reproduces the condition immediately after a feature flag changes. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


bridge-analytics-service

Summary: A analytics repository organized as a API gateway architecture.

A customer-facing workflow intermittently exhibits this behavior: regression suite design appears in the analytics workflow during a partial network failure, and the relationship between the migration runner and schema registry is not yet proven. Work in `bridge-analytics-service`, a API gateway architecture implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Laravel trace: migration runner completed before schema registry validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-07: behavior changes during a partial network failure.

The focused case fails only during a partial network failure and passes when schema registry is bypassed.

app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php defines the initiating behavior, app/Services/WorkflowService.php owns the decision, and app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. The failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the migration runner from the schema registry.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the migration runner and schema registry; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported analytics behavior.

Evidence tied to app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/Services/WorkflowService.php, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php, not a generic confirmation.

`app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`app/Services/WorkflowService.php` applies an assumption that is invalid during a partial network failure.

`app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` so ownership and scope are explicit between the migration runner and schema registry.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, `app/Services/WorkflowService.php`, and `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused PHPUnit case that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_07` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with PHPUnit.

Run the existing Composer static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case during a partial network failure.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` and `app/Services/WorkflowService.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. the failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the schema registry and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` and `app/Services/WorkflowService.php`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A customer-facing workflow intermittently exhibits this behavior: regression suite design appears in the analytics workflow during a partial network failure, and the relationship between the migration runner and schema registry is not yet proven. Work in `bridge-analytics-service`, a API gateway architecture implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` and `app/Services/WorkflowService.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. the failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


vault-education-technology-service

Summary: A education technology repository organized as a batch processing system.

During validation, the system revealed that regression suite design appears in the education technology workflow after switching tenants in the same browser session, and the relationship between the feature-flag client and configuration service is not yet proven. Work in `vault-education-technology-service`, a batch processing system implemented with Rust and Axum. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Axum trace: feature-flag client completed before configuration service validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-08: behavior changes after switching tenants in the same browser session.

The focused case fails only after switching tenants in the same browser session and passes when configuration service is bypassed.

src/store/repository.rs defines the initiating behavior, src/workers/consumer.rs owns the decision, and src/security/policy.rs is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the feature-flag client establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the configuration service consumes that state after switching tenants in the same browser session. The failure becomes observable in the education technology workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the feature-flag client from the configuration service.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the feature-flag client and configuration service; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported education technology behavior.

Evidence tied to src/store/repository.rs, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/workers/consumer.rs, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/security/policy.rs, not a generic confirmation.

`src/store/repository.rs` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`src/workers/consumer.rs` applies an assumption that is invalid after switching tenants in the same browser session.

`src/security/policy.rs` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `src/workers/consumer.rs` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/workers/consumer.rs` so ownership and scope are explicit between the feature-flag client and configuration service.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/store/repository.rs`, `src/workers/consumer.rs`, and `src/security/policy.rs` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused cargo test case that reproduces the condition after switching tenants in the same browser session.

Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_08` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with cargo test.

Run the existing Cargo static or build checks used by the repository.

Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case after switching tenants in the same browser session.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/store/repository.rs` and `src/workers/consumer.rs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the feature-flag client establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the configuration service consumes that state after switching tenants in the same browser session. the failure becomes observable in the education technology workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/workers/consumer.rs`, plus a focused test in `src/security/policy.rs` that reproduces the condition after switching tenants in the same browser session. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the configuration service and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/workers/consumer.rs` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/store/repository.rs` and `src/workers/consumer.rs`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] During validation, the system revealed that regression suite design appears in the education technology workflow after switching tenants in the same browser session, and the relationship between the feature-flag client and configuration service is not yet proven. Work in `vault-education-technology-service`, a batch processing system implemented with Rust and Axum. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/store/repository.rs` and `src/workers/consumer.rs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the feature-flag client establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the configuration service consumes that state after switching tenants in the same browser session. the failure becomes observable in the education technology workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/workers/consumer.rs`, plus a focused test in `src/security/policy.rs` that reproduces the condition after switching tenants in the same browser session. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


stream-media-processing-service

Summary: A media processing repository organized as a plugin-oriented application.

A maintenance task became unsafe after reviewers noticed regression suite design appears in the media processing workflow following a dependency upgrade, and the relationship between the authorization policy and resource loader is not yet proven. Work in `stream-media-processing-service`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Ktor trace: authorization policy completed before resource loader validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-060-09: behavior changes following a dependency upgrade.

The focused case fails only following a dependency upgrade and passes when resource loader is bypassed.

src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt defines the initiating behavior, src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt owns the decision, and src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is regression suite design: the authorization policy establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the resource loader consumes that state following a dependency upgrade. The failure becomes observable in the media processing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the authorization policy from the resource loader.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the authorization policy and resource loader; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported media processing behavior.

Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt, not a generic confirmation.

`src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt` creates or forwards the state involved in regression suite design.

`src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` applies an assumption that is invalid following a dependency upgrade.

`src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties regression suite design to `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` so ownership and scope are explicit between the authorization policy and resource loader.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt`, `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt`, and `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Kotest case that reproduces the condition following a dependency upgrade.

Run the focused test `test_regression_suite_design_09` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Kotest.

Run the existing Gradle static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case following a dependency upgrade.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt` and `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the authorization policy establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the resource loader consumes that state following a dependency upgrade. the failure becomes observable in the media processing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` that reproduces the condition following a dependency upgrade. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the resource loader and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt` and `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A maintenance task became unsafe after reviewers noticed regression suite design appears in the media processing workflow following a dependency upgrade, and the relationship between the authorization policy and resource loader is not yet proven. Work in `stream-media-processing-service`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `regression suite design` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/kotlin/app/Worker.kt` and `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is regression suite design: the authorization policy establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the resource loader consumes that state following a dependency upgrade. the failure becomes observable in the media processing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` that reproduces the condition following a dependency upgrade. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.