fix(qa): align post-create smoke reason-code contract with live product output

[100yenadmin]

Priority

P1 release blocker.

Problem

The exact 1.6.0 release candidate passes 67/68 OpenClaw full-matrix invocations. loo_codex_start_thread_post_create_proof returns a valid persisted proof with the four core persistence codes plus the product-defined prepared-card diagnostics, but the smoke validator introduced in #782 requires exactly the four core codes and rejects the real product output.

Acceptance criteria

• Require all four core persisted-proof reason codes.
• Permit only the product-defined prepared-card supplemental codes.
• Continue to reject missing core codes, unknown codes, inconsistent aliases, result-not-ok envelopes, and restricted actions.
• Add a regression fixture matching the real persisted response, including prepared-card diagnostics.
• Pass focused tests, npm run check, current-head CI/CodeQL/review, and the exact-package OpenClaw full tool matrix.

Release evidence

Release candidate: 4384302ecd0caae2a2658a554951a4c3827aa29c
Observed full matrix: 67 passed / 1 failed.
Blockers: post_create_proof_reason_codes_invalid, expected_fail_closed_not_proven:loo_codex_start_thread_post_create_proof.

No live mutation is required; this is a QA contract correction backed by public-safe gateway output.

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Possible Duplicate Issue(s)

• QA full matrix should accept successful post-create proof #782

🔗 Related PRs

#395 - Fix live-control failure proof reports [merged]
#444 - test: prove prepared-state gateway dogfood [merged]
#544 - fix: prove all declared tools in full OpenClaw smoke [merged]
#660 - fix: harden historic review proof gates [merged]
#767 - Prepare LCO 1.6.0 release truth [merged]
#772 - Fix release proof binding and incremental FTS probe [merged]

---

📝 Issue Planner

_{Check the box below or use the @coderabbitai plan command to generate an implementation plan and prompts that you can use with your favorite coding assistant.}

• Create Plan

---

🧪 Issue enrichment is currently in open beta.

You can configure auto-planning by selecting labels in the issue_enrichment configuration.

To disable automatic issue enrichment, add the following to your .coderabbit.yaml:

issue_enrichment:
  auto_enrich:
    enabled: false

💬 Have feedback or questions? Drop into our discord!

[100yenadmin]

Current-head release-blocker evidence for PR #785 at 7a1c5e5b48ab468e8fcd0171bce7698e37ea29c6:

• production TypeScript build: pass
• focused OpenClaw smoke tests: 96/96 pass
• exact-head CI: pass
• exact-head CodeQL workflow + analysis: pass
• full isolated OpenClaw gateway matrix: pass, 68/68, zero blockers
• independent exact-object review: no actionable findings after closing prepared-state reason/field/object alias false-promotion paths
• unresolved review threads: 0
• evaOS exact-head review: queued
• CodeRabbit substantive review: temporary quota-deferred; waiting for the bot-provided retry window before merge

No live Codex action or GUI mutation was performed by this fix/matrix lane. The PR remains unmerged until the outstanding current-head review policy settles.

[evaos-code-review-bot]

evaOS issue enrichment

Issue: #784 - fix(qa): align post-create smoke reason-code contract with live product output
State: open; milestone: Milestone 14: LCO 1.6 Control Plane Release Train

Related issues/PRs: #782.
Existing labels: bug, safety, milestone-tracker, codex, orchestrator, eval.
Suggested labels: tests.
Suggested owners: none.

Related context

• QA full matrix should accept successful post-create proof #782 - mentioned in issue metadata; inspect for dependency, duplicate, or prior-decision risk.

Agent-start packet

Problem shape: fix(qa): align post-create smoke reason-code contract with live product output - ## Priority P1 release blocker. ## Problem The exact 1.6.0 release candidate passes 67/68 OpenClaw full-matrix invocations. loo_codex_start_thread_post_create_proof returns a valid persisted proof with the four core
Product fit: Product/market issue; check vision fit, customer value, and whether external precedent can reduce time-to-market.
Implementation wedge: Prototype the candidate module behind a config flag or fixture before committing to the dependency.

Build / borrow / buy scan:

• Build: identify the smallest implementation wedge that proves the issue without broad rollout.
• Borrow: inspect same-repo prior art, repo memory, GitNexus context, and allowlisted cross-repo examples first.
• Buy/use: run capped external OSS/library/API/current-market research with citations, observed dates, and why each source matters.
• Library choice: compare maintenance, API fit, license, bundle/runtime cost, and integration proof.

Candidate sources:

• VISION.md / repo policy / repo-memory.md / GitNexus packet.
• Same-repo issues and PRs referenced by issue metadata.
• Allowlisted cross-repo GitHub examples with direct issue/PR/repo URLs.
• External OSS repositories or library/API docs with freshness dates.
• Current market/product examples, capped and cited, only when they change implementation direction.

Acceptance criteria:

• Preserve and execute the issue's stated acceptance criteria.
• Include source citations for any external OSS/library/current-market claims.
• Keep issue-enrichment comments sticky and idempotent.
• Keep labels, owners, reviewers, and roadmap fields suggestion-only.

Proof plan:

• Focused unit/fixture test for the changed planner behavior.
• Dry-run issue-enrichment evidence packet before live comment posting.
• Redaction check for issue body, citations, and generated markdown.
• Dependency/license/API-fit note before adding or relying on a package.

Known traps:

• Do not treat related links as proof by themselves; each source needs a reason why it matters.
• Do not scan old issue backlogs or exceed repo-level enrichment throttles.
• External research must stay capped, cited, fresh-dated, and redacted.
• Technical severity alone can miss product/UX regressions; include product-manager review framing.

Non-goals:

• Do not auto-apply labels, owners, reviewers, roadmap fields, or milestones.
• Do not bulk-enrich old backlog issues from this planner output.
• Do not claim external market or OSS research was performed unless cited sources are present.

Context-source taxonomy:

• [enabled] vision_repo_policy_memory_gitnexus: Use repo vision, policy, memory, and GitNexus first before external research.
• [enabled] same_repo_issues_prs: Issue metadata contains same-repo references.
• [enabled] allowlisted_cross_repo_github: Triggered by issue class; keep to configured allowlist and source caps.
• [enabled] external_oss_examples: Use for build/borrow/buy precedent with citations and observed dates.
• [enabled] library_api_docs: Use when implementation may depend on a module, SDK, API, or framework choice.
• [enabled] current_market_examples: Use for product/UX/market positioning issues with freshness dates.
• [enabled] internal_mcp_docs: Use internal docs/MCP context when available; missing context is degraded, not blocking.

Validation suggestions

• Confirm owner, acceptance criteria, and validation evidence before implementation.

Triage gaps

• Owner or reviewer signal not detected in issue body.

No labels, owners, reviewers, or roadmap fields were changed by this bot.

[100yenadmin]

Release-train refresh: PR #785 now includes current main through head f22d304bdcccaaed73d1b4454dec7eeea6bb1822 without conflict. Focused OpenClaw validator proof passed 96/96 after a clean lockfile install/build. Current-head CI, CodeQL, refreshed semantic review, and the combined 1.6 release battery remain required before merge/publication. No active Eva configuration or database state changed.