8 lines
4.6 KiB
JSON
8 lines
4.6 KiB
JSON
{
|
||
"action": "request-repair",
|
||
"task_id": "MP-01-r02",
|
||
"reason": "The worker stopped for one reason only: the reuse_inputs paths outside its sandbox were unreadable. It did not report any problem with the spec or the design. The owner has confirmed that byte-identical copies of both reuse files are already inside the allowed output directory. A repair that points the worker at those in-workspace copies fixes the block without reading outside the sandbox, expanding scope or changing the spec.\n\nRepair budget mismatch: the task contract says max_repair_attempts=1, and the status shows repairs=1. The owner says one repair remains under a cap of 2. The Runner must check its own counter before dispatching. If the cap is reached, stop and escalate to the owner. Do not raise the cap or waive anything to make this run.\n\nDirections for the worker:\n\n(0) Before any edit, confirm the contract spec hash using git show <base>:docs/spec/acceptance/P06-mana-proposal-r02.json, then .strip(), then UTF-8 SHA256. It must equal f8cf1753…be77c6. A difference caused only by a trailing newline is not a reason to block.\n\n(1) Use only the in-workspace copies as reuse inputs: docs/plans/original-completion-2026-10-02/execution/mana-proposal/proposal.json (raw SHA aca6d781…6f0d2) and PROPOSAL.md (raw SHA 95024959…bb41f). Check both raw-byte SHAs before editing. If either does not match, return blocked and change nothing. Do not read the external MP-01-implement paths or try to get around the sandbox. Revise both files in place. Keep the existing values, reasoning and comparisons, and change only what items (2)–(9) require. Do not start new research or a new numeric design.\n\n(2) Make source_pins a dict of {repo-relative path: raw-file SHA256}, hashed from the current files. Move provenance into a separate field that keeps original, current implementation, fixture and candidate sources apart.\n\n(3) demand_catalog: for the 4 facilities that do not set maintenance_mana, set observed_maintenance_mana=0 and cite FacilityDefinition's explicit default of 0. Mark the 13 unimplemented original facilities as unknown, not 0, and do not project whole-game demand.\n\n(4) Fix the surplus scenario. The net change is 63−40=23 per interval going down. Starting from 200, stock is 16 after 8 intervals and hits 0 in the 9th, not the 12th. Show the formula, inputs, period and result, and fix every place that depends on this number.\n\n(5) Furnace: separate two capacity checks, (a) capacity remaining after generation and demand, and (b) conservative headroom measured before demand. Recommend one as an UNAPPROVED candidate only. Explain that rejection is atomic and nothing is partly consumed. Give the proposed input/output amounts, eligibility and timing. No actor or resource is actually consumed. Keep the original constraints: furnace is 6x3, back underground, consumes slaves, and no input that breaks other original rules such as people being irreplaceable or unsellable.\n\n(6) Zero stock always means total facility shutdown unless the resulting stock is positive. Legacy zero must not be silently turned into full or unlimited stock.\n\n(7) Proposed generation, initial amount, capacity and the 10-minute interval reuse existing values. Label them as proposals, not approved balancing. Keep GameState mana=100 (initial stock) separate from STARTER_MANA_OUTPUT=100 (network supply capacity, not generation per interval).\n\n(8) Carry over all original constraints. List the real open decisions, including the D05 update order that is still unapproved. Keep the facts that P24 final acceptance depends on P18, P19 and P21 and that this proposal does not replace P24. It is not P06-01 acceptance and not a new original unit.\n\n(9) At the top of PROPOSAL.md, state that it is unapproved and not applied to the product. Keep status=proposed_unapproved and applied_to_product=false.\n\nEdit only these 2 files. No product, spec, ledger, Runner or provider changes. No git writes and no formal tests. Return submitted when done.\n\nThe root runs the proposal-consistency static check and arranges a separate independent review. Neither may be self-confirmed.",
|
||
"codex_model": "gpt-6.1-sol",
|
||
"codex_model_reason": "This is a bounded revision of two documents that already exist, with every correction listed (pin format, 4 vs 13 facilities, one arithmetic fix, choosing a furnace capacity check, wording). The worker does not need new research or design, and the scope is limited to two files. The default model covers this quality-wise and saves time and usage. The earlier failures came from file access, not reasoning, so they do not justify gpt-6-astra."
|
||
}
|