[cocolord]

An old Todo-region reader can reject a generated archive summary and report quota_unexpected_collection_error. The emitted per-Todo omission row carries valid todo_id metadata and was already accepted by that reader. This proposal gives maintainers a precise diagnosis and a composite symptom lookup, preserving the existing reader repair in #7834.

旧 Todo-region reader 可能拒绝生成的归档摘要并报告 quota_unexpected_collection_error；带有效 todo_id 的单条字段省略行已能被它读取。此提案收窄故障归因、提供组合症状查询，并沿用 #7834 的既有修复。

Goal And Delivered Outcome

• Outcome basis: the accepted monorepo-distribution/small-kernel RFC; scoped reader compatibility and recovery qualification.
• Current gap: a shared comment prefix was treated as evidence that both generated forms fail on the historical reader. The older 36-case matrix covered plain, archive-summary and foreign-narrative rows.
• Observable result: the existing self-repair row now distinguishes the two forms, requires exact-reader refusal before attributing a per-Todo omission fault, and explains how read-only verbose status supplies the symptom omitted by thin App output.
• Intended base: loopx-project/loopx:main. Related repair: feat(control-plane): sqlite_v0 bounded active view projection, in-transaction auto-archive, and goal-scoped stale_source_registry #7834. No issue is closed.

Author Declaration

• Written by: model_agent — TRAE, GPT-6 (OpenAI).

Implemented against

• Specification: the English/Chinese monorepo-distribution-split-v0 pair at ebb39f4db088cc77927c4514d614476ad0a5c84e, plus the repository self-repair and real-path validation rules.

Criterion	Disposition	Owning surface	Decisive evidence
Diagnose the responsible layer and reuse shipped repairs	implemented	Existing self-repair pattern	Exact historical reader bytes; two emitted pointer forms and foreign-narrative controls; composite/id lookup
§5 / I8 preserve original identity, replay and authority	qualified within this fixture scope	Existing CLI, reader and TypeScript owners	File/SQLite real console, original Turn/native read/replay, two source recoveries, unchanged work and zero fixture debits
§7 retain foreign-content rejection and privacy	implemented	Three documentation files; unchanged parser	Six expected foreign-narrative refusals; isolated public scan
I3 retain established imports for at least one minor release	preserved	Existing RFC checkpoint	No production-source or import diff
Full R0/V10, R1 and split-install acceptance	remains open	Existing RFC route	No preset, installation, host promotion or long-horizon benefit claim

• Self-check: reviewed all three changed files and their translation against the actual historical/current reader and emitted rows. The shared prefix is insufficient attribution.

Scope And Continuation

• Completed author scope: corrected diagnosis, both RFC mirrors, the missing real-console comparison, lookup and package readback.
• Remaining: review/CI and merge readiness; actual installed-host upgrade/readback; full kernel, context/model, split-install, adoption and complete cost qualification.
• Existing M1/refactor(chat): move public status owner with identity-compatible imports #8011 and D2/D5/D6/D3 retain their dependencies and owners. This proposal does not promote a default or authorize an upgrade.
• Bounded refactoring: applied a more precise diagnosis in the existing skill owner. Another Python reader rewrite is unnecessary because feat(control-plane): sqlite_v0 bounded active view projection, in-transaction auto-archive, and goal-scoped stale_source_registry #7834 already repairs the archive-summary path.

Validation

• Tested head: 2bd00b02cdac73ee39f10b1abdcaec86cdd7a6df.
• Runtime baseline / actual worktree base: ebb39f4db088cc77927c4514d614476ad0a5c84e.
• Historical reader component: public 8d314af49 bytes.
• Environment: Python 3.13.5, Node 26.0.0; isolated synthetic File/SQLite.
• Run state: finished except the separately noted PR CI/review gates.
• Input classes: synthetic; historical component comparison. Raw evidence remains private.

Check	Result	Evidence and limits
Existing region/projection/SQLite archive regressions	passed	83 tests; same existing suites
Real console / backend comparison	passed	18 unique cases: ten successes, two historical archive-summary refusals and six foreign-narrative refusals. All six per-Todo omission cases succeeded
Native read and replay	passed	Ten successful cases executed the emitted read command and replayed the original Turn; both historical archive-summary failures recovered/replayed through source
State and accounting	passed	Source and canonical work unchanged; zero quota debits in every synthetic case
Source/package provenance	passed	1,834 packaged Python/TypeScript/JSON runtime resources match source bytes; final wheel comparison and packaged lookup recorded
Lookup / public boundary / bilingual diff	passed	Composite query ranks the precise pattern first; exact-id read; three public files scanned in isolation; staged and committed bilingual checks
Required repository Ruff invocation	failed, unchanged on base	The configured roots report the same F841 in tests/control_plane/test_goal_create_completion.py:184; output is identical on the immutable base and candidate
Standard risk-based premerge	passed	Exact final head, standard tier: four direct and fourteen selected checks passed; no advisory failure or warning. Required Ruff remains reported separately
Serving retirement	passed	All disposable validation namespaces retired serving; evidence directories retained
Process exit	unconfirmed in one initial wait	That wait returned shutdown_pending; serving retirement was checked separately. No process-exit qualification or directory deletion is claimed
Installed host / long-horizon outcome and total cost	not_run	Outside the author scope and not established by source/wheel fixtures

• Coverage: the earlier 36-case/Python 3.13–3.14 evidence remains scoped to its original three input classes; it did not cover per-Todo omission. This revision fills that gap without relabeling the historical results.
• Preparation failures were retained, including stale bundle reuse and reading a thin failure as inline policy. The bundle was rebuilt from current inputs; the native failure was inspected through its original digest-bound capture.
• The comparison establishes reader compatibility, not a speedup. Complete model, service CPU and human costs remain unmeasured.

Frontend / Visual Evidence

• UI impact: none. The diff changes the existing self-repair guide and an RFC evidence checkpoint.
• Before/after viewport, preview and attention review: N/A.
• No product frontend interaction or configuration owner changes.

Type of Change

• Documentation update

LoopX Area

• Capability or extension (existing self-repair skill)
• Public docs or presentation surface

Technical Direction

Existing small-kernel RFC reader/recovery qualification; S2/S10 diagnosis. No whole-kernel completion, preset promotion or runtime rewrite.

Shared-authority RFC fixture impact

No provider, persisted schema, authority routing or promotion changes. File/SQLite fixtures qualify the documented reader boundary; PostgreSQL promotion rehearsal is outside this documentation proposal.

Boundary Checklist

• Public diff/body exclude private state, raw logs/snapshots, credentials, internal links and local paths.
• No paid/model/benchmark run or host upgrade.
• Both RFC languages changed and were reviewed for meaning.
• Existing normal PR remains the review entry.
• Signed commits; unchanged exact-head validation and readback.

[loopx-agent]

Reviewer: model_agent | gpt-6.1-sol | OpenAI | runtime_reported | reasoning_effort=max

[P2] 请区分归档摘要和单条字段省略指针。 旧 reader 实际接受带有效 todo_id 的单条字段省略指针；当前故障指引把它和会被拒绝的归档摘要归为同一原因。 这会让维护者把同一标记区的其他故障误判成安装 reader 漂移。请收窄故障条目，并同步修正英文、中文 RFC。对单条字段省略，只有精确旧 reader 确实拒绝该行时，才归因于它。

动机 / Motivation

维护者遇到配额检查失败时，需要判断是不是安装中的旧 reader 拒绝了系统生成的归档指针。 旧 reader 会拒绝没有可识别 Todo 元数据的归档摘要；单查通用错误码时，另一类注册表故障排在第一。 错误码加上标记区报错能找到新增条目，但条目把旧 reader 已能读取的单条字段省略指针也列为故障原因。 本 PR 只改故障指引和双语 RFC，reader、状态写入和升级权限都没变。 需区分两种指针的旧行为。真实宿主升级、完整 R0/V10 成本和长程收益仍未验证。

改动思路 / Approach

#7834 已进入主干，沿用现有故障索引合理。通用错误码加上标记区报错，在源码和 wheel 中均把新条目排第一；单查通用错误码时，注册表故障仍排第一。建议给出可复用的组合查询，并注明精简的 Codex App 输出可能只有错误码，具体异常可用只读的 quota status --verbose 确认。

具体改动 / Changes

双语附录新增资格记录，现有故障目录新增一条指引。关键区别在旧 reader 的元数据分支：单条字段省略行含有效 todo_id，会被既有元数据解析器接受；没有可识别元数据的归档摘要触发拒绝。两者共享注释前缀，旧行为不同。

对照 RFC 修订 97cc1e0：§5 / I8 要求保留原会话绑定及回执，§7 要求保留外来内容的拒绝，I3 保留已有导入。本 PR 没有移动任何导入，也没有引入第二个状态 owner。Full R0/V10, R1 仍是原 RFC 的后续验收；隔离 wheel 的恢复结果只证明这两种合成指针的读取行为，不能证明真实宿主已升级，更不能据此推导总体成本或采用率。

对主干的风险 / Risks

用 Python 3.11、Node 24，在隔离的 File 和 SQLite 上对照历史 reader 组件、当前源码和 wheel 的真实 CLI。旧组件拒绝归档摘要、接受单条省略；当前两种指针均可读，外来正文始终拒绝。原 Turn 的 capture 可回读和重放，canonical Todo 和 revision 不变，扣费为零。33 项相关测试及风险分级 premerge 通过。全量 Ruff 在基线和当前 head 均报同一处 F841，属于单独的合并验证缺口；按策略未查 CI。

我的整体评价 / Verdict

保留现有索引和双语附录即可。请用两种指针及一个外来正文反例复核收窄后的表述。全量 Ruff 的既有失败不改变这个归因，合并就绪仍需单独验证。只改 CLI 故障参考和 RFC；没有界面改动。

English verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES. Scope the diagnosis to an archive summary that the observed historical reader actually rejects. It already accepts the emitted per-Todo omission row; the shared prefix alone does not establish the cause.

[loopx-agent]

Reviewer: model_agent | gpt-6.1-sol | OpenAI | runtime_reported | reasoning_effort=max

复审提交 2bd00b0。上一轮 P2 已修正。

动机 / Motivation

维护者遇到配额检查失败时，需要判断旧读取器究竟拒绝了哪一行。 上一版把已经能读的单条省略行算进了兼容性故障。修订后，共用前缀的两种指针各自对应可核对的读取行为。 复测中旧组件拒绝归档摘要，接受单条省略。当前源码和 wheel 都能读这两种指针。 这批兼容性证据来自隔离复现，实际安装升级沿用现有权限与原绑定读回。 实际宿主升级和完整运行成本仍待验证。

改动思路 / Approach

沿用现有故障索引，用错误码和标记区报错组合检索，读取器与投影沿用各自的实现。 以实际合并预检为准，净变化是两份 RFC 和一条故障指引。 精简输出可能只显示错误码，详细的只读状态可以核对异常类型和报错。源码与 wheel 的组合查询都将对应条目排在首位。条目要求核对生成行、读取器字节及加载来源，再判断是否匹配已知故障。 更新后的索引

具体改动 / Changes

两份附录和索引都说明了旧读取器对两种指针的实际处理。归档摘要缺少可识别的 Todo 元数据，因此会触发拒绝。单条省略包含有效 todo_id，原有元数据分支已经可以接受。附录分别交代了原先 36 例和新增 18 例的输入范围，索引也要求按实际组件和生成行验证故障。 英文附录 中文附录 省略行生成逻辑

对照 RFC 修订 ebb39f4 的 §5 / I8 和 §7，实测保留原 Turn 身份和外来内容拒绝。现有导入继续满足 I3 约定的路径。R0/V10 and R1 保留各自的验收条件。 规格

对主干的风险 / Risks

GitHub 的旧基点比较显示 16 个文件。对主干 8e86f17 执行 Git 合并预检，其中 13 个文件的内容都与主干一致。

用 Python 3.11 和 Node 24 在隔离的 File 和 SQLite 上独立验证。三类输入中的外来正文在各组合上始终被拒绝。原 Turn 可回读和重放，canonical 状态保持原值，扣费为零。83 项回归、双语检查和 premerge 通过。全量 Ruff 在基线和当前提交均报同一处 F841，严格 CQR 仍未通过。按策略未查 CI。

我的整体评价 / Verdict

这次修订把诊断落到了可复现的读取器版本和具体生成行上。复审认可这项文档修正。运行验收仍以实际安装中的读取和原绑定读回为据，合并资格由独立检查判定。

English verdict: APPROVE. The revised guidance distinguishes the rejected historical archive summary from the already accepted per-Todo omission row. The independently reproduced Ruff failure remains a separate strict merge hold.

The merge-base changed after approval.