ABSENT
BORN LABS
Explore ABLPages & docs

Absent Born Labs / Public directory

Explore ABL.

Pages, documentation and the work behind them.

25 pages and section links. Browse the directory.

One menu for pages, documentation and lab records.

§04 · LAB LOG · WHAT ACTUALLY MOVED

The lab, 2026-11-07.

Daily records retain archival work-date labels. Work, preparation, review, and publication dates stay separate.

LAB/2026-11-07 // DATED WORK RECEIPTS

Lab / evidence companionwork date

Use a fresh client for each observation

One native review; collector still uninstalled

One bounded local-model review reached a recorded result. Codex then refined the collector and its tests; the corrected collector remained an undeployed candidate.

  • Agents
  • Process control
  • Verification
Evidence scope

Partial-day checkpoint through 00:26 UTC. One actual local-model review is separate from the four fake-client CPU checks and the uninstalled collector candidate.

Recorded measurementCollector candidate regression controlsoffline collector test cases
Collector candidate regression controlsFour CPU tests passed against fake clients and actual embedded collector functions. These are separate from the single native-model review. Passed: 4 passed; Failed: 0 failed; Skipped: 0 skipped. Each cell is one case; grouped by outcome, not execution order.

One square = one main-suite case. Grouped by outcome.

  • Passed4 passed
  • Failed0 failed
  • Skipped0 skipped

Tests cover fresh clients, cleanup, retained partial results and null-job fallback. The corrected collector remained uninstalled.

Read the data
Collector candidate regression controls — offline collector test cases
ObservationRecorded valueScope
Passed4 passedDated measurement; not current telemetry.
Failed0 failedDated measurement; not current telemetry.
Skipped0 skippedDated measurement; not current telemetry.

At this checkpoint

Native review attempts
1actual model call

No follow-up call or automatic retry.

Observed review duration
56.442seconds

One bounded observation, not a throughput or general-quality benchmark.

Collector regression suite
4CPU checks passed

Fake clients and actual embedded functions; no live collector acceptance.

Follow the evidence

Open a stage to inspect what happened.

  1. 01Complete one native reviewrecorded

    One local 27B review completed in 56.442 seconds; independent readback retained its answer and matching model identity.

  2. 02Keep advice attributedreviewed

    The review was useful with limitations. It did not demonstrate a leak or supply the Codex-authored implementation and tests.

  3. 03Repair reporting boundariestested

    The second candidate retained successful partial observations, restored null-job fallback and passed four fake-client CPU checks.

  4. 04Keep installation separateopen

    The corrected collector was not installed or exercised against the live system at this checkpoint.

Controls & proof2 documented controls
  • independent native result and preservationRecorded control

    PASS: matching original result and model identity; previous records preserved; unchanged service generations and released owned lifecycle handles.

  • fresh client cleanup partial observationRecorded control

    PASS: 4 fake-client CPU checks preserve partial success and explicit-null projection and test caller cleanup without blind retry.

A dated evidence view. Publication and review dates remain in the original record below.

2026-11-07

Lab log — 2026-11-07

Prepared from retained primary receipts by Codex; work date 2026-11-07; prepared 2026-11-07; first published 2026-11-07; independently reviewed source and public-page checks are scoped below; owner editorial review of individual technical claims is not recorded. Partial-day checkpoint through 2026-11-07T00:26:14.706253Z; not a full-day rollup.

The collector source reused a client after its request had closed it. One bounded local 27B model review completed in 56.442 seconds through the existing native route. Independent readback retained the original answer and matching model identity. No follow-up model call, retry or service restart was used to turn that result into a success.

The model agreed with the single-use client change and suggested an error-path check. Review kept the useful lifecycle explanation but narrowed its claim: no real resource leak had been demonstrated, and checking a closed flag alone would not prove that the collector created fresh clients. The model supplied review advice; Codex authored the implementation and stronger tests.

Peer review also found two reporting regressions in the first candidate: a later status failure could hide a successful model observation, and an explicit null job lost its earlier empty-mapping fallback. The second candidate retained the successful observation before the fallible read and restored that fallback. Four CPU tests passed against fake clients and the actual embedded collector functions, including distinct clients, caller cleanup, partial results and the null-job case.

What did not ship

The corrected collector was not installed or run against the live system. One completed native review did not test repeated scheduling, a five-hour worker shift, autonomous feedback consumption, general model quality or a speedup. An older uncertain job remained unchanged.

Next

Exercise the corrected collector through its normal read-only route, retaining a successful first observation when the later status call fails and proving fresh-client cleanup without automatic retry.

Raw telemetry

  • Actual native review: 1 attempt, 56.442 seconds; no additional model calls.
  • Separate collector regression suite: 4 CPU tests passed.
  • Collector installation and live candidate execution: neither performed at this checkpoint.

← all lab logs