Same original task P18-01-CODE ordinary repair transition completed: repair_ready, used counter3 retained, capnull. No worker is live. Return action=run for the SAME preserved clean0084760e worktree, model gpt-6.1-sol as your inspected decision (or concrete revised model reason). Put the FULL concrete repair direction into reason, not merely a reference, so worker gets exact instructions. Preserve unchanged spec/all4backendconditions/12allowedpaths and originalP18-01 remainingconditions. No engine until Root preflight; worker static/prepare-only and return submission, no directcommit/push. Recheck baseline legitimate legacy numeric semantics; finite integral JSON floats are an example, not permission to invent a new format restriction. Derive accepted legacy formats and rejection safeguards from baseline Reader/State and representative saves; preserve raw legacy values and canonical update precedence. All details of your actual recorded repair instruction follow:
{"action": "request-repair", "task_id": "P18-01-CODE", "reason": "Repair the same registered task P18-01-CODE on held commit 0084760e. Do not create a new task, re-register, or start a duplicate worker. Repairs used stay at 2 and the cap stays null, as the owner set. I read the held source, and it confirms the reviewer's three gaps.\n\nEvidence:\n(a) Legacy type check, relationship_service.gd:544-579. `_legacy_types_valid` requires `int` for the shield, timestamp and day fields, all five metrics plus `affinity`/`obligation`, action_counts, daily_metric_deltas and thresholds. It also requires `route_id` to be a String. Older valid saves that went through JSON or the baseline Reader store whole numbers as floats, so these checks reject them.\n(b) Actor check, simulation_runtime.gd:1063-1066. This loop is new and was not in the baseline. It rejects any legacy relationship actor that is not `player`, active staff, or `restored_guests.has_guest`. Departed guests are kept by `GuestService.despawn_guest` in `persistent_records` but are no longer in `_guests`, so their legitimate relationship history now fails to restore.\n(c) Wrong catalog, simulation_runtime.gd:6773-6788. `_original_relationship_identities_valid` reads the live `mvp_content_catalog`, even when restore calls it at :1059 with the candidate `restored_staff`. The candidate restore should validate against `restored_catalog` (:712).\n(d) No alias test. `_merge_legacy_changes` (:440-452) is only exercised with unchanged alias fixtures.\n\nConcrete minimal repair, limited to the 12 allowed paths:\n\n1. Legacy five-axis behaviour and aliases:\n- Do not change the RelationshipState API or behaviour.\n- Add model and Runtime tests that load a v1 record containing `affinity`/`obligation` plus extra unknown fields. Each test then:\n  - actually changes `affection` and `dependence` through the existing public APIs;\n  - saves as v2, restores, and rebinds;\n  - asserts the changed canonical values, the untouched raw alias values, the unknown fields and the collection order are all preserved;\n  - confirms the canonical key keeps its existing precedence over the alias, as the unchanged RelationshipState already does.\n- Assert that the original Affection/Lust/Netorare values remain unconfigured (null) and are never filled from old axes.\n\n2. Remove only the unjustified restore regressions:\n- First read the baseline at d2a1f80: `RelationshipState.from_snapshot`, `RelationshipService.restore_snapshot`/`_parse_snapshot`, Runtime full restore, `GuestService` `persistent_records`, and the numeric Reader.\n- Relax `_legacy_types_valid` only to what the baseline accepted. For example, accept finite JSON floats with integral values wherever the baseline coerced them with `int()`.\n- Keep rejecting non-numeric values, non-finite values, wrong container types, unknown or new versions, duplicate ids or pairs, bad candidate references, corrupt original payloads, and projection mismatches.\n- Delete the new actor-existence loop at :1063-1066. Alternatively, limit it to exactly what the baseline enforced, which includes departed guests from `persistent_records`.\n- Keep the person-reference validation for original records.\n- Add accepted-legacy tests: a JSON-float v1 save, a departed-guest relationship, and the P02-01 representative save if one applies.\n- Add rejection invariants for each failure type. Each must show the prior service and Runtime state unchanged and the input bytes unchanged.\n\n3. Lifecycle and identity of original records:\n- Use the existing guards and do not invent a departure policy. Test that `remove_staff` and `retire_staff` on a UNIQUE heroine with a registered original record are actually refused.\n- Test that the record survives save/readback after that refused removal.\n- Never silently delete original records.\n- Pass the catalog into `_original_relationship_identities_valid`: `restored_catalog` during candidate restore, the live catalog for commands.\n- Add Runtime negative tests, each rejected atomically: duplicate original, wrong version type, projection mismatch, non-heroine UNIQUE subject, rival not a counterpart, and a subject who is not staff.\n\n4. Collector and pins:\n- Update the two new marker rows in completion_marker_contracts.json and the two suite-policy.json rows to the exact new source SHA-256 values.\n- Leave the existing 5 suites byte-identical.\n- Run static and `--prepare-only` checks only. Report bytes, capacity and roster before any engine run; about 3.1 GB is currently free.\n- The worker must not run raw Godot, use the default profile, or start the native collector. Root owns the native isolated run (7 suites, strict markers/sources/profiles/owned PIDs, default player data preserved). No duplicate full regression.\n\n5. Keep all 4 backend conditions and the remaining original-unit conditions open:\n- Do not claim the backend task or P18-01 complete. P18-01 stays 30/88, in progress, with no partial credit.\n- Do not touch UI, production values or coefficients, routes, contacts, duel, or old save bytes on rejection.\n- Update IMPLEMENTATION.md under p18-01-code/ with a record for each legacy format: why it is accepted and what is still rejected.\n\nAfter the repair, the order is:\n1. Root runs the native local + affected collection on the exact candidate.\n2. Formal p18-model validation.\n3. Separate Opus review.\n4. Latest-main integration.\n5. Affected final validation.", "codex_model": "gpt-6.1-sol", "codex_model_reason": "The repair is narrow and the inspected code locates every change exactly:\n- Relax one type-validator function back to the baseline at relationship_service.gd:544.\n- Remove or narrow one 4-line loop (simulation_runtime.gd:1063-1066).\n- Pass a catalog parameter into one validator (:6773).\n- Add tests and update the hash pins.\nAtomic commit already exists and is staged through the restored_* candidates, so no new legacy-ownership or atomic-save design is needed. That does not justify Astra's extra cost and time. Sol is enough, provided it reads the baseline Reader and GuestService before relaxing anything. Choosing a model does not authorize a run, a cap change or an acceptance waiver."}