{
  "schema": "ABL_SANITIZED_LAB_CHECKPOINT_V1",
  "work_date": "2026-11-13",
  "prepared_on": "2026-11-14",
  "publication_status": "PUBLIC_RELEASE",
  "title": "Closing one worker round trip",
  "evidence_scope": "Selected November 13 coordination and ledger receipts. Prepared November 14; not a complete-day history or a current fleet-health claim.",
  "observations": [
    "The coordination problem was not whether another agent could produce text. It was whether a request could reach the intended worker, return a result without manual forwarding, and leave a record that did not confuse receipt with execution.",
    "One real round trip closed at 19:41 UTC. An authorized reply-only request reached the existing native coordinator session, and its bound response returned automatically to the bridge. The wrapper exited successfully, without a timeout or standard-error output. This was a concrete transport result, not a simulation of an agent answering.",
    "The answer also carried an inconvenient but useful distinction: an earlier successful provider-admission checkpoint did not establish that a later login was still usable. The retained handoff described a subsequent authentication block and left project coordination unverified. Historical readiness must not silently become present authority.",
    "A separate ledger prototype addressed the state underneath that handoff. It stored intent in SQLite before returning a claim, serialized competing claims and marked unresolved work unknown after restart instead of automatically retrying it. The independent review recorded 17 passing tests: eight author tests and nine reviewer tests. Abrupt process exit was tested; actual power loss was not.",
    "That ledger was not the dispatcher behind the successful reply. Its accepted scope was an isolated, trusted single coordinator. The reviewer explicitly withheld live-integration approval, and the milestone made no model calls or provider requests. Keeping those two proof tracks separate prevents a tested component from inheriting the credibility of an unrelated working connection.",
    "The completed reply was subsequently sent to the private mission-control endpoint, which acknowledged it. That acknowledgement was another boundary, not proof that the owner had seen the result or that a dashboard direction had been applied. The remaining task was to join request identity, worker completion and delivery into one durable project workflow."
  ],
  "telemetry": [
    "Native round trip: one reply-only request; wrapper exit 0; no timeout; 0 stderr bytes.",
    "Ledger review: 17 passed, 0 failed; 8 author and 9 independent tests.",
    "Ledger milestone: 0 model calls and 0 provider requests.",
    "Recovery test: abrupt process exit exercised; physical power loss not tested."
  ],
  "boundary": "No permanent dispatcher, dashboard-triggered project execution or generic fleet authority was established. The ledger prototype was not connected to the live coordinator. No current provider availability, owner-visible delivery or power-loss durability is inferred from these receipts.",
  "next": "Demonstrate one authorized dashboard direction becoming a native project result and returning to the owner view, with the same correlation identity throughout. Repeat delivery without executing the project twice, and preserve an unknown outcome rather than retrying unresolved work.",
  "publication_date": "2026-11-14"
}