anchor-hr-systems-service

Summary: A HR systems repository organized as a plugin-oriented application.

A multi-step change is blocked by the fact that contradictory evidence appears in the HR systems workflow while old and new application versions coexist, and the relationship between the dependency resolver and build pipeline is not yet proven. Work in `anchor-hr-systems-service`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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: dependency resolver completed before build pipeline validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-092-17: behavior changes while old and new application versions coexist.

The focused case fails only while old and new application versions coexist and passes when build pipeline is bypassed.

The core issue is contradictory evidence: the dependency resolver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the build pipeline consumes that state while old and new application versions coexist. The failure becomes observable in the HR systems workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

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

One observation must discriminate the dependency resolver from the build pipeline.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the dependency resolver and build pipeline; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported HR systems behavior.

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

Question: contradictory evidence

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

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

`src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` creates or forwards the state involved in contradictory evidence.

`src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` applies an assumption that is invalid while old and new application versions coexist.

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

Change the decision boundary in `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` so ownership and scope are explicit between the dependency resolver and build pipeline.

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

Add a focused Kotest case that reproduces the condition while old and new application versions coexist.

Run the focused test `test_contradictory_evidence_17` 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 while old and new application versions coexist.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` and `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: the dependency resolver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the build pipeline consumes that state while old and new application versions coexist. the failure becomes observable in the hr systems workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt` that reproduces the condition while old and new application versions coexist. 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 build pipeline and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` 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 multi-step change is blocked by the fact that contradictory evidence appears in the HR systems workflow while old and new application versions coexist, and the relationship between the dependency resolver and build pipeline is not yet proven. Work in `anchor-hr-systems-service`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` and `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: the dependency resolver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the build pipeline consumes that state while old and new application versions coexist. the failure becomes observable in the hr systems workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/main/kotlin/app/Service.kt` that reproduces the condition while old and new application versions coexist. 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.


prism-subscription-billing-service

Summary: A subscription billing repository organized as a modular monolith.

A test environment and production-like environment disagree: a proposed fix for contradictory evidence would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs when a fallback code path executes. Work in `prism-subscription-billing-service`, a modular monolith implemented with Ruby and Rails. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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 assume access to production systems.

Limit the patch to the smallest responsible scope.

Rails trace: tenant resolver completed before cache key builder validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-092-18: behavior changes when a fallback code path executes.

The focused case fails only when a fallback code path executes and passes when cache key builder is bypassed.

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

The core issue is contradictory evidence: the tenant resolver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the cache key builder consumes that state when a fallback code path executes. The failure becomes observable in the subscription billing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the tenant resolver from the cache key builder.

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 `Uncertainty and Escalation` task. The agent should first establish whether `contradictory evidence` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the tenant resolver and cache key builder; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported subscription billing behavior.

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

Separate verified facts, plausible hypotheses, and unknowns.

Estimate the consequence of acting while uncertain.

Gather low-risk evidence and stop before irreversible work.

Escalate with a precise request when the missing information cannot be derived.

Context: when a fallback code path executes

Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about contradictory evidence.

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

Question: contradictory evidence

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

Context: when a fallback code path executes

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

Context: when a fallback code path executes

`config/routes.rb` creates or forwards the state involved in contradictory evidence.

`app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` applies an assumption that is invalid when a fallback code path executes.

`app/services/workflow_service.rb` 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 contradictory evidence to `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` so ownership and scope are explicit between the tenant resolver and cache key builder.

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

Add a focused RSpec case that reproduces the condition when a fallback code path executes.

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_contradictory_evidence_18` 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.

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 a fallback code path executes.

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 `config/routes.rb` and `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: the tenant resolver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the cache key builder consumes that state when a fallback code path executes. the failure becomes observable in the subscription billing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb`, plus a focused test in `app/services/workflow_service.rb` that reproduces the condition when a fallback code path executes. 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 cache key builder 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 `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` 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 `config/routes.rb` and `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb`.

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] A test environment and production-like environment disagree: a proposed fix for contradictory evidence would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs when a fallback code path executes. Work in `prism-subscription-billing-service`, a modular monolith implemented with Ruby and Rails. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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 `config/routes.rb` and `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: the tenant resolver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the cache key builder consumes that state when a fallback code path executes. the failure becomes observable in the subscription billing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb`, plus a focused test in `app/services/workflow_service.rb` that reproduces the condition when a fallback code path executes. 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.


switch-inventory-service

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

A repository handoff highlights one unresolved behavior: the team cannot safely complete the inventory change because contradictory evidence remains unresolved during cooperative cancellation. Work in `switch-inventory-service`, a event-driven services implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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.

CMake service trace: audit logger completed before transaction manager validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-092-19: behavior changes during cooperative cancellation.

The focused case fails only during cooperative cancellation and passes when transaction manager is bypassed.

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

The core issue is contradictory evidence: the audit logger establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the transaction manager consumes that state during cooperative cancellation. The failure becomes observable in the inventory workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the audit logger from the transaction manager.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the audit logger and transaction manager; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

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

Context: during cooperative cancellation

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

Question: contradictory evidence

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

Context: during cooperative cancellation

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

Context: during cooperative cancellation

`src/core/workflow.cpp` creates or forwards the state involved in contradictory evidence.

`src/data/repository.cpp` applies an assumption that is invalid during cooperative cancellation.

`src/workers/consumer.cpp` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties contradictory evidence to `src/data/repository.cpp` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/data/repository.cpp` so ownership and scope are explicit between the audit logger and transaction manager.

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

Add a focused Catch2 case that reproduces the condition during cooperative cancellation.

Run the focused test `test_contradictory_evidence_19` 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 during cooperative cancellation.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/core/workflow.cpp` and `src/data/repository.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: the audit logger establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the transaction manager consumes that state during cooperative cancellation. the failure becomes observable in the inventory workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/data/repository.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/workers/consumer.cpp` that reproduces the condition during cooperative cancellation. 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 transaction manager and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

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

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/core/workflow.cpp` and `src/data/repository.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 repository handoff highlights one unresolved behavior: the team cannot safely complete the inventory change because contradictory evidence remains unresolved during cooperative cancellation. Work in `switch-inventory-service`, a event-driven services implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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/core/workflow.cpp` and `src/data/repository.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: the audit logger establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the transaction manager consumes that state during cooperative cancellation. the failure becomes observable in the inventory workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/data/repository.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/workers/consumer.cpp` that reproduces the condition during cooperative cancellation. 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.


trail-observability-service

Summary: A observability repository organized as a service-repository application.

A reliability review asks the agent to address a case where the team cannot safely complete the observability change because contradictory evidence remains unresolved after a duplicate event delivery. Work in `trail-observability-service`, a service-repository application implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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.

Do not suppress errors without explaining their cause.

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

Correlation marker jf-092-20: behavior changes after a duplicate event delivery.

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

app/repositories/store.py defines the initiating behavior, app/workers/events.py owns the decision, and app/security/policy.py is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is contradictory evidence: 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.

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.

Context: after a duplicate event delivery

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

Question: contradictory evidence

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

Context: after a duplicate event delivery

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

Context: after a duplicate event delivery

`app/repositories/store.py` creates or forwards the state involved in contradictory evidence.

`app/workers/events.py` applies an assumption that is invalid after a duplicate event delivery.

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

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties contradictory evidence to `app/workers/events.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/workers/events.py` so ownership and scope are explicit between the notification dispatcher and template renderer.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/repositories/store.py`, `app/workers/events.py`, and `app/security/policy.py` unless new evidence requires it.

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

Run the focused test `test_contradictory_evidence_20` 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.

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/repositories/store.py` and `app/workers/events.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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/workers/events.py`, plus a focused test in `app/security/policy.py` 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/workers/events.py` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/repositories/store.py` and `app/workers/events.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 reliability review asks the agent to address a case where the team cannot safely complete the observability change because contradictory evidence remains unresolved after a duplicate event delivery. Work in `trail-observability-service`, a service-repository application implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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/repositories/store.py` and `app/workers/events.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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/workers/events.py`, plus a focused test in `app/security/policy.py` 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-service

Summary: A data pipelines repository organized as a microservice platform.

The task appears simple, yet the system context shows that the team cannot safely complete the data pipelines change because contradictory evidence remains unresolved with a stale session token. Work in `vector-data-pipelines-service`, a microservice platform implemented with Python and Django. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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 change the public API contract.
Do not add a new runtime dependency.

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

Correlation marker jf-092-21: 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.

app/models.py defines the initiating behavior, app/middleware.py owns the decision, and tests/test_workflow.py is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is contradictory evidence: 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.

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.

Context: with a stale session token

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

Question: contradictory evidence

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

Context: with a stale session token

Evidence tied to tests/test_workflow.py, not a generic confirmation.

Context: with a stale session token

`app/models.py` creates or forwards the state involved in contradictory evidence.

`app/middleware.py` applies an assumption that is invalid with a stale session token.

`tests/test_workflow.py` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties contradictory evidence to `app/middleware.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/middleware.py` 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 `app/models.py`, `app/middleware.py`, and `tests/test_workflow.py` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused pytest-django case that reproduces the condition with a stale session token.

Run the focused test `test_contradictory_evidence_21` 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 with a stale session token.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/models.py` and `app/middleware.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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 `app/middleware.py`, plus a focused test in `tests/test_workflow.py` 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.

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

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/models.py` and `app/middleware.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] The task appears simple, yet the system context shows that the team cannot safely complete the data pipelines change because contradictory evidence remains unresolved with a stale session token. Work in `vector-data-pipelines-service`, a microservice platform implemented with Python and Django. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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/models.py` and `app/middleware.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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 `app/middleware.py`, plus a focused test in `tests/test_workflow.py` 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.


watch-feature-management-service

Summary: A feature management repository organized as a serverless workflow.

A recent refactor changed the conditions under which the feature management system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes contradictory evidence when configuration is hot-reloaded. Work in `watch-feature-management-service`, a serverless workflow implemented with TypeScript and Node.js. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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.

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

Correlation marker jf-092-22: 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/security/policy.ts defines the initiating behavior, test/workflow.test.ts owns the decision, and src/http/routes.ts is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is contradictory evidence: 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.

Context: when configuration is hot-reloaded

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

Question: contradictory evidence

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

Context: when configuration is hot-reloaded

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

Context: when configuration is hot-reloaded

`src/security/policy.ts` creates or forwards the state involved in contradictory evidence.

`test/workflow.test.ts` applies an assumption that is invalid when configuration is hot-reloaded.

`src/http/routes.ts` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties contradictory evidence to `test/workflow.test.ts` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `test/workflow.test.ts` so ownership and scope are explicit between the rate limiter and distributed counter.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/security/policy.ts`, `test/workflow.test.ts`, and `src/http/routes.ts` unless new evidence requires it.

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

Run the focused test `test_contradictory_evidence_22` 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.

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 configuration is hot-reloaded.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/security/policy.ts` and `test/workflow.test.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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 `test/workflow.test.ts`, plus a focused test in `src/http/routes.ts` 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 `test/workflow.test.ts` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/security/policy.ts` and `test/workflow.test.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 recent refactor changed the conditions under which the feature management system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes contradictory evidence when configuration is hot-reloaded. Work in `watch-feature-management-service`, a serverless workflow implemented with TypeScript and Node.js. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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/security/policy.ts` and `test/workflow.test.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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 `test/workflow.test.ts`, plus a focused test in `src/http/routes.ts` 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-service

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

A security review requires careful handling because a proposed fix for contradictory evidence would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs under high-cardinality traffic. Work in `engine-cybersecurity-operations-service`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Preserve backward compatibility with existing records.

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

Correlation marker jf-092-23: behavior changes under high-cardinality traffic.

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

tests/workflow.spec.ts defines the initiating behavior, src/app/router.tsx owns the decision, and src/features/state.ts is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is contradictory evidence: 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.

Context: under high-cardinality traffic

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

Question: contradictory evidence

Evidence tied to src/app/router.tsx, not a generic confirmation.

Context: under high-cardinality traffic

Evidence tied to src/features/state.ts, not a generic confirmation.

Context: under high-cardinality traffic

`tests/workflow.spec.ts` creates or forwards the state involved in contradictory evidence.

`src/app/router.tsx` applies an assumption that is invalid under high-cardinality traffic.

`src/features/state.ts` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties contradictory evidence to `src/app/router.tsx` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/app/router.tsx` so ownership and scope are explicit between the validation layer and normalization pipeline.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `tests/workflow.spec.ts`, `src/app/router.tsx`, and `src/features/state.ts` unless new evidence requires it.

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

Run the focused test `test_contradictory_evidence_23` 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 under high-cardinality traffic.

I traced the task to the interaction between `tests/workflow.spec.ts` and `src/app/router.tsx`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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 `src/app/router.tsx`, plus a focused test in `src/features/state.ts` 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 `src/app/router.tsx` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `tests/workflow.spec.ts` and `src/app/router.tsx`.

[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 a proposed fix for contradictory evidence would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs under high-cardinality traffic. Work in `engine-cybersecurity-operations-service`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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 `tests/workflow.spec.ts` and `src/app/router.tsx`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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 `src/app/router.tsx`, plus a focused test in `src/features/state.ts` 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-service

Summary: A workflow automation repository organized as a multi-tenant SaaS.

A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why contradictory evidence appears in the workflow automation workflow when a client omits a recently added field, and the relationship between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest is not yet proven. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-service`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with Java and Spring Boot. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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.

Keep retries and idempotency semantics intact.

Spring Boot trace: release orchestrator completed before deployment manifest validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-092-24: 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/main/java/app/Controller.java defines the initiating behavior, src/main/java/app/Service.java owns the decision, and src/main/java/app/Repository.java is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is contradictory evidence: 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.

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

Question: contradictory evidence

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

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

`src/main/java/app/Controller.java` creates or forwards the state involved in contradictory evidence.

`src/main/java/app/Service.java` applies an assumption that is invalid when a client omits a recently added field.

`src/main/java/app/Repository.java` 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 contradictory evidence to `src/main/java/app/Service.java` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/main/java/app/Service.java` so ownership and scope are explicit between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest.

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

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

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_contradictory_evidence_24` 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.

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/main/java/app/Controller.java` and `src/main/java/app/Service.java`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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/main/java/app/Service.java`, plus a focused test in `src/main/java/app/Repository.java` 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/main/java/app/Service.java` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` and `src/main/java/app/Service.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] A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why contradictory evidence appears in the workflow automation workflow when a client omits a recently added field, and the relationship between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest is not yet proven. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-service`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with Java and Spring Boot. Focus on the agent behavior required for `contradictory evidence` 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/Controller.java` and `src/main/java/app/Service.java`. The evidence indicates the core issue is contradictory evidence: 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/main/java/app/Service.java`, plus a focused test in `src/main/java/app/Repository.java` 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-gateway

Summary: A payments repository organized as a microservice platform.

A support escalation reports a proposed fix for unresolved risk disclosure would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs after a warm-cache transition. Work in `ledger-payments-gateway`, a microservice platform implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

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

Correlation marker jf-103-00: behavior changes after a warm-cache transition.

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

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 unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `Communication and Reporting` task. The agent should first establish whether `unresolved risk disclosure` 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.

Lead with the current conclusion or status.

Support it with concrete evidence and affected scope.

Disclose unresolved risks, assumptions, and next decision.

Adapt detail to the intended technical or nontechnical audience.

Context: after a warm-cache transition

Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about unresolved risk disclosure.

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

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

Context: after a warm-cache transition

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

Context: after a warm-cache transition

`src/http/routes.cpp` creates or forwards the state involved in unresolved risk disclosure.

`src/core/workflow.cpp` applies an assumption that is invalid after a warm-cache transition.

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

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties unresolved risk disclosure 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 request router and domain service.

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 after a warm-cache transition.

Run the focused test `test_unresolved_risk_disclosure_00` 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 after a warm-cache transition.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `src/core/workflow.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/data/repository.cpp` 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 `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 support escalation reports a proposed fix for unresolved risk disclosure would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs after a warm-cache transition. Work in `ledger-payments-gateway`, a microservice platform implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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 unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `src/core/workflow.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/data/repository.cpp` 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-gateway

Summary: A healthcare scheduling repository organized as a serverless workflow.

An engineer observed the healthcare scheduling system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes unresolved risk disclosure under two concurrent requests. Work in `relay-healthcare-scheduling-gateway`, a serverless workflow implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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.

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

Correlation marker jf-103-01: behavior changes under two concurrent requests.

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

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

The core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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.

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

Context: under two concurrent requests

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

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

Context: under two concurrent requests

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

Context: under two concurrent requests

`app/services/core.py` creates or forwards the state involved in unresolved risk disclosure.

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

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

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties unresolved risk disclosure to `app/repositories/store.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/repositories/store.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/services/core.py`, `app/repositories/store.py`, and `app/workers/events.py` unless new evidence requires it.

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

Run the focused test `test_unresolved_risk_disclosure_01` 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 under two concurrent requests.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/services/core.py` and `app/repositories/store.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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/repositories/store.py`, plus a focused test in `app/workers/events.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/repositories/store.py` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/services/core.py` and `app/repositories/store.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 healthcare scheduling system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes unresolved risk disclosure under two concurrent requests. Work in `relay-healthcare-scheduling-gateway`, a serverless workflow implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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/core.py` and `app/repositories/store.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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/repositories/store.py`, plus a focused test in `app/workers/events.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-gateway

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

The latest release exposed a pattern: unresolved risk disclosure appears in the developer tooling workflow during a rolling deployment, and the relationship between the background worker and event consumer is not yet proven. Work in `atlas-developer-tooling-gateway`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with Python and Django. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

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

Correlation marker jf-103-02: behavior changes during a rolling deployment.

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

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

The core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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.

Context: during a rolling deployment

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

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

Context: during a rolling deployment

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

Context: during a rolling deployment

`app/services.py` creates or forwards the state involved in unresolved risk disclosure.

`app/models.py` applies an assumption that is invalid during a rolling deployment.

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

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties unresolved risk disclosure to `app/models.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/models.py` so ownership and scope are explicit between the background worker and event consumer.

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

Add a focused pytest-django case that reproduces the condition during a rolling deployment.

Run the focused test `test_unresolved_risk_disclosure_02` 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 during a rolling deployment.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/services.py` and `app/models.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `app/models.py`, plus a focused test in `app/middleware.py` 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 `app/models.py` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/services.py` and `app/models.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] The latest release exposed a pattern: unresolved risk disclosure appears in the developer tooling workflow during a rolling deployment, and the relationship between the background worker and event consumer is not yet proven. Work in `atlas-developer-tooling-gateway`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with Python and Django. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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.py` and `app/models.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `app/models.py`, plus a focused test in `app/middleware.py` 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-gateway

Summary: A identity management repository organized as a multi-tenant SaaS.

A reproducible test now shows the team cannot safely complete the identity management change because unresolved risk disclosure remains unresolved at a daylight-saving boundary. Work in `harbor-identity-management-gateway`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with TypeScript and Node.js. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

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

Correlation marker jf-103-03: 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/workers/consumer.ts defines the initiating behavior, src/security/policy.ts owns the decision, and test/workflow.test.ts is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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.

Context: at a daylight-saving boundary

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

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

Context: at a daylight-saving boundary

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

Context: at a daylight-saving boundary

`src/workers/consumer.ts` creates or forwards the state involved in unresolved risk disclosure.

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

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

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties unresolved risk disclosure to `src/security/policy.ts` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/security/policy.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/workers/consumer.ts`, `src/security/policy.ts`, and `test/workflow.test.ts` unless new evidence requires it.

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

Run the focused test `test_unresolved_risk_disclosure_03` 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 at a daylight-saving boundary.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/workers/consumer.ts` and `src/security/policy.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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/security/policy.ts`, plus a focused test in `test/workflow.test.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/security/policy.ts` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/workers/consumer.ts` and `src/security/policy.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 the team cannot safely complete the identity management change because unresolved risk disclosure remains unresolved at a daylight-saving boundary. Work in `harbor-identity-management-gateway`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with TypeScript and Node.js. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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.ts` and `src/security/policy.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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/security/policy.ts`, plus a focused test in `test/workflow.test.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-gateway

Summary: A e-commerce repository organized as a API gateway architecture.

Operational telemetry suggests the e-commerce system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes unresolved risk disclosure when retries overlap. Work in `forge-e-commerce-gateway`, a API gateway architecture implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

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

Correlation marker jf-103-04: behavior changes when retries overlap.

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

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

The core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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.

Context: when retries overlap

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

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

Context: when retries overlap

Evidence tied to src/app/router.tsx, not a generic confirmation.

Context: when retries overlap

`src/auth/session.ts` creates or forwards the state involved in unresolved risk disclosure.

`tests/workflow.spec.ts` applies an assumption that is invalid when retries overlap.

`src/app/router.tsx` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties unresolved risk disclosure to `tests/workflow.spec.ts` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `tests/workflow.spec.ts` so ownership and scope are explicit between the cache layer and database gateway.

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

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

Run the focused test `test_unresolved_risk_disclosure_04` 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 when retries overlap.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/auth/session.ts` and `tests/workflow.spec.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `tests/workflow.spec.ts`, plus a focused test in `src/app/router.tsx` 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 `tests/workflow.spec.ts` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/auth/session.ts` and `tests/workflow.spec.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] Operational telemetry suggests the e-commerce system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes unresolved risk disclosure when retries overlap. Work in `forge-e-commerce-gateway`, a API gateway architecture implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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/auth/session.ts` and `tests/workflow.spec.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `tests/workflow.spec.ts`, plus a focused test in `src/app/router.tsx` 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-gateway

Summary: A logistics repository organized as a batch processing system.

A code review uncovered a risk: a proposed fix for unresolved risk disclosure would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs with legacy records created before the last migration. Work in `signal-logistics-gateway`, a batch processing system implemented with Java and Spring Boot. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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: scheduler completed before job executor validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-103-05: 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.

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

The core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java, not a generic confirmation.

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

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

`src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` creates or forwards the state involved in unresolved risk disclosure.

`src/main/java/app/Controller.java` applies an assumption that is invalid with legacy records created before the last migration.

`src/main/java/app/Service.java` 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 unresolved risk disclosure to `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` so ownership and scope are explicit between the scheduler and job executor.

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

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

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_unresolved_risk_disclosure_05` 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 with legacy records created before the last migration.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` and `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`, plus a focused test in `src/main/java/app/Service.java` 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 `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` and `src/main/java/app/Controller.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] A code review uncovered a risk: a proposed fix for unresolved risk disclosure would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs with legacy records created before the last migration. Work in `signal-logistics-gateway`, a batch processing system implemented with Java and Spring Boot. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` and `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`, plus a focused test in `src/main/java/app/Service.java` 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-gateway

Summary: A collaboration software repository organized as a plugin-oriented application.

The team needs a grounded investigation because a proposed fix for unresolved risk disclosure would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs immediately after a feature flag changes. Work in `orbit-collaboration-software-gateway`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with Go and Chi. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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: serializer completed before public API contract validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-103-06: 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.

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

The core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 internal/http/routes.go, not a generic confirmation.

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

Evidence tied to internal/store/repository.go, not a generic confirmation.

`internal/http/routes.go` creates or forwards the state involved in unresolved risk disclosure.

`internal/service/core.go` applies an assumption that is invalid immediately after a feature flag changes.

`internal/store/repository.go` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties unresolved risk disclosure to `internal/service/core.go` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `internal/service/core.go` so ownership and scope are explicit between the serializer and public API contract.

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

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

Run the focused test `test_unresolved_risk_disclosure_06` 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 immediately after a feature flag changes.

I traced the task to the interaction between `internal/http/routes.go` and `internal/service/core.go`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `internal/service/core.go`, plus a focused test in `internal/store/repository.go` 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 `internal/service/core.go` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `internal/http/routes.go` and `internal/service/core.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] The team needs a grounded investigation because a proposed fix for unresolved risk disclosure would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs immediately after a feature flag changes. Work in `orbit-collaboration-software-gateway`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with Go and Chi. Focus on the agent behavior required for `unresolved risk disclosure` 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/http/routes.go` and `internal/service/core.go`. The evidence indicates the core issue is unresolved risk disclosure: 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 `internal/service/core.go`, plus a focused test in `internal/store/repository.go` 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.