{
  "version": "now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_deepseek_consultation.v1",
  "created_at": "2026-06-07T07:28:27.694756Z",
  "call_status": "success",
  "provider_meta": {
    "provider": "deepseek_reviewer",
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "base_url": "https://api.deepseek.com/chat/completions",
    "thinking_type": "enabled",
    "reasoning_effort": "max",
    "max_tokens": 32000,
    "timeout_seconds": 600,
    "temperature": 0.0,
    "skipped": false
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "system",
      "content": "You are an independent pipeline boundary auditor. Return compact JSON only. Advisory-only."
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "{\"active_route\": {\"execution_state_ref\": {\"exists\": true, \"path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/execution_state.json\", \"sha256\": \"5432a7e0256dbc1b4a8f8a9659d63395b361c68feae9cfb3d27ac2c4734424b7\", \"size_bytes\": 82528}, \"next_entrypoint_id\": \"platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract\"}, \"advisory_question\": \"Round 2: critique Round 1 and the guard packet for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, missing assumptions, source fingerprint handling, schema normalization, and operator constraints.\", \"contract_excerpt\": {\"char_count\": 17282, \"exists\": true, \"path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/docs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_contract_20260607.md\", \"sha256\": \"b1ed73c869e27fb8ed3fe22e3cd85ec61af62bcf25dce745f86dffd7366edbf2\", \"text\": \"# NOW-33 Reference Candidate Consumption Guard And Registry Content Review Contract\\n\\n更新时间：`2026-06-07T14:40:40+08:00`\\n\\n## Status\\n\\n- contract id: `now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_contract`\\n- status: `contract_landed_pending_implementation`\\n- active route authority: `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint`\\n- active route remains: `platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract`\\n- source retrospective: `docs/now33_reference_registry_rerun_retrospective_20260607.md`\\n- source NOW-33 rerun: `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049`\\n- source registry build: `outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032`\\n- source built-candidate preflight: `outputs/current_registry_authority_preflight_for_built_candidate_20260607_0034`\\n- DeepSeek v4 pro Round 1: `outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_contract_deepseek_pro_consultation_20260607_143239`\\n- DeepSeek v4 pro Round 2: `outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_contract_deepseek_pro_consultation_round2_20260607_143656`\\n- superseded non-pro advisory record: `outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_contract_deepseek_consultation_20260607_143046`\\n\\n## Purpose\\n\\nNOW-33 reference-registry rerun produced `1476` exact-surface `candidate_entity_refs` across `1056` of `1638` prompt draft rows. These refs are useful review signals, but they are not canonical bindings.\\n\\nThis contract defines the next implementation step before any canonical UID binding, KG/raw KG/entity-store writeback, row mutation, asset binding, evidence pack, route transition, or production acceptance:\\n\\n1. Build deterministic consumption guards so downstream code cannot treat `candidate_entity_refs` as `canonical_entity_uids`.\\n2. Build a registry content review packet for the `28` unblocked registry entities and the `1476` candidate refs.\\n3. Produce review/gap/risk artifacts that prepare, but do not execute, a future canonical UID binding acceptance/writeback contract.\\n\\n## Inputs\\n\\nRequired read-only inputs:\\n\\n- `outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_gate.json`\\n- `outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json`\\n- `outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_source_entity_candidate_manifest.jsonl`\\n- `outputs/current_registry_authority_preflight_for_built_candidate_20260607_0034/NOW_33A_current_registry_gate.json`\\n- `outputs/current_registry_authority_preflight_for_built_candidate_20260607_0034/NOW_33A_registry_candidate_manifest.jsonl`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_entity_link_gate.json`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_entity_link_advisory_manifest.jsonl`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_entity_gap_report.json`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_registry_discovery_report.json`\\n- DeepSeek final advisory refs for registry build and NOW-33 rerun.\\n\\nAll inputs remain source artifacts only. Reading these inputs does not create acceptance, evidence, canonical authority, or writeback authority.\\n\\n## Allowed Work\\n\\nImplementation may:\\n\\n- Parse and validate the required input gates/manifests.\\n- Verify that the configured registry path, selected preflight path, and NOW-33 registry discovery path match.\\n- Verify SHA-256 integrity for all required input artifacts recorded in the implementation input manifest before processing.\\n- Verify that `target_source_fingerprint` exists and matches across the target registry build gate, built-candidate preflight gate, and NOW-33 reference rerun gate.\\n- Verify that every NOW-33 row with candidate refs includes `candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings=true` and `candidate_refs_writeback_allowed=false`.\\n- Verify that every candidate ref object is structurally valid before review queue generation.\\n- Verify that every referenced candidate comes from a registry entity with `blocked_for_review=false`.\\n- Verify row-level candidate-ref count consistency between declared row counts and actual candidate ref arrays.\\n- Build a candidate-ref consumption guard report with pass/block findings.\\n- Build a registry content review queue covering the `28` unblocked registry entities.\\n- Build a candidate-ref review queue covering the `1476` candidate refs, grouped by entity UID, surface, draft row, chapter, scene, and shot.\\n- Flag likely false positives, missing high-value surfaces, blocked-entity leakage, alias/surface collisions, duplicate-surface risks, weak support, and type/subtype uncertainty.\\n- Generate side-effect-free JSON/JSONL/HTML artifacts under a new output run.\\n- Run two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max advisory rounds over the contract and output packet if the implementation asserts closeout/readiness.\\n\\n## Forbidden Work\\n\\nThis contract does not authorize:\\n\\n- canonical UID binding acceptance or writeback;\\n- KG/raw KG/entity-store writeback;\\n- accepted/operator overlay writeback;\\n- draft, held, readiness, execution-log, or prompt-row mutation;\\n- held-row promotion, waiver, or repair execution;\\n- asset generation, acquisition, or binding;\\n- provider-specific prompt generation, adapter payload generation, provider job execution, or media generation;\\n- manual/provider/operator evidence creation;\\n- feedback intake, repair, replay, or replay eligibility;\\n- route transition or `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint` change;\\n- `outputs/index.json` or `outputs/index-lite.json` mutation;\\n- production readiness or production acceptance.\\n\\nDeepSeek advisory remains advisory-only and cannot become evidence, operator acceptance, canonical state, writeback authority, route authority, or output-index authority.\\n\\n## Required Output Artifacts\\n\\nThe implementation should create a new output run, for example:\\n\\n`outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_<timestamp>`\\n\\nRequired artifacts:\\n\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_input.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_registry_content_review_queue.jsonl`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_ref_review_queue.jsonl`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_surface_collision_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_missing_high_value_surface_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_review_summary.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_validation_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_review.html`\\n- `manifest.json`\\n\\nIf DeepSeek consultation is run for implementation closeout, store consultation inputs/messages/raw/parsed/record files in dedicated output directories and reference them from the gate. These records are review aids only and must never be used as provider/manual/operator evidence, accepted overlay, canonical facts, route authority, or output-index authority.\\n\\n## Required Output Schemas\\n\\n`manifest.json` must include at minimum:\\n\\n- `version`\\n- `created_at`\\n- `run_id`\\n- `stage`\\n- `status`\\n- `input_artifacts` with `path`, `sha256`, and `size_bytes`\\n- `output_artifacts` with `path`, `sha256`, `size_bytes`, and `artifact_role`\\n- `deepseek_advisory_refs`\\n- `forbidden_side_effect_counts`\\n- `advisory_only=true`\\n- `not_evidence_or_acceptance_or_route_authority=true`\\n\\n`NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.json` must include at minimum:\\n\\n- `version`\\n- `created_at`\\n- `status`\\n- `pass`\\n- `block_reasons`\\n- `warnings`\\n- `input_integrity`\\n- `source_fingerprint_check`\\n- `registry_path_check`\\n- `candidate_ref_structural_check`\\n- `candidate_ref_count_check`\\n- `non_binding_flag_check`\\n- `blocked_registry_leak_check`\\n- `canonical_uid_writeback_check`\\n- `output_forbidden_claim_scan`\\n- `review_queue_coverage`\\n- `deepseek_advisory_status`\\n- `forbidden_side_effect_counts`\\n- `next_entrypoint_unchanged`\\n- `advisory_only=true`\\n- `not_evidence_or_acceptance_or_route_authority=true`\\n\\n## Consumption Guard Rules\\n\\nThe guard must block if any of the following are true:\\n\\n- `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint` changed.\\n- NOW-33 rerun gate is not `advisory_entity_link_binding_closed_reference_registry_no_writeback`.\\n- NOW-33 rerun gate has `canonical_entity_uid_bound_count != 0`.\\n- Any NOW-33 row has non-empty `canonical_entity_uids`.\\n- Any NOW-33 row with candidate refs lacks `candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings=true`.\\n- Any NOW-33 row with candidate refs lacks `candidate_refs_writeback_allowed=false`.\\n- Any candidate ref object lacks required structural fields: `entity_uid`, `canonical_name`, and `matched_surface`.\\n- Any row-level declared candidate-ref count differs from the actual number of candidate ref objects for that row.\\n- Any candidate ref resolves to a registry entity with `blocked_for_review=true`.\\n- Any candidate ref points to an entity UID absent from the configured registry.\\n- Any source/preflight/NOW-33 selected registry path mismatches.\\n- `target_source_fingerprint` is absent from any target registry build, built-candidate preflight, or NOW-33 reference rerun gate, or the values differ.\\n- Any required input artifact SHA-256 differs from the implementation input manifest.\\n- Any output artifact claims accepted binding, canonical writeback, evidence, provider execution, route transition, output-index mutation, or production acceptance.\\n- Any output artifact content scan detects forbidden claims such as `canonical_entity_uids` populated, `candidate_refs_writeback_allowed=true`, accepted/operator overlay writeback, manual/provider/operator evidence, provider execution, route transition, output-index mutation, or production acceptance.\\n\\nThe guard may pass with review warnings if false-positive, missing-surface, alias-collision, or type-uncertainty risks are present, provided they are explicit review queue items and no forbidden writeback/acceptance authority is created.\\n\\n## Registry Content Review Queue\\n\\nEach unblocked registry entity review row must include:\\n\\n- `review_item_id`\\n- `entity_uid`\\n- `canonical_name`\\n- `aliases`\\n- `type`\\n- `subtype`\\n- `source_evidence_refs`\\n- `source_ref_count`\\n- `candidate_ref_count`\\n- `matched_surfaces`\\n- `matched_draft_row_ids`\\n- `risk_flags`\\n- `recommended_review_action`\\n- `allowed_review_actions`\\n- `advisory_only=true`\\n- `canonical_writeback_allowed=false`\\n\\nAllowed review actions are:\\n\\n- `keep_candidate_for_future_binding_review`\\n- `needs_alias_or_surface_review`\\n- `needs_type_subtype_review`\\n- `needs_split_or_merge_review`\\n- `exclude_from_future_binding_review`\\n- `defer_until_more_evidence`\\n\\nThese actions are review recommendations only. They do not become accepted overlay rows.\\n\\n## Candidate Ref Review Queue\\n\\nEach candidate ref review row must include:\\n\\n- `review_item_id`\\n- `draft_row_id`\\n- `chapter_index`\\n- `scene_number`\\n- `shot_number`\\n- `entity_uid`\\n- `canonical_name`\\n- `matched_surface`\\n- `match_source`\\n- `context_excerpt`\\n- `row_candidate_ref_count`\\n- `risk_flags`\\n- `recommended_review_action`\\n- `allowed_review_actions`\\n- `candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings=true`\\n- `candidate_refs_writeback_allowed=false`\\n- `canonical_writeback_allowed=false`\\n\\nAllowed review actions are:\\n\\n- `candidate_ref_plausible_for_future_binding_review`\\n- `candidate_ref_surface_collision_risk`\\n- `candidate_ref_false_positive_suspected`\\n- `candidate_ref_needs_context_review`\\n- `candidate_ref_defer_until_registry_review`\\n\\nThese actions are review recommendations only and cannot mutate source rows or accepted overlays.\\n\\n## Risk Flags\\n\\nUse deterministic flags where possible:\\n\\n- `blocked_registry_entity_leak`\\n- `candidate_uid_missing_from_registry`\\n- `surface_collision`\\n- `alias_collision`\\n- `multiple_candidate_refs_in_row`\\n- `weak_source_support`\\n- `type_subtype_uncertain`\\n- `high_frequency_surface`\\n- `role_or_title_surface`\\n- `object_or_locat\", \"truncated\": true}, \"expected_json_schema\": {\"confidence\": \"high | medium | low\", \"final_recommendation\": \"short string\", \"findings\": [{\"category\": \"scope | validation | fingerprint | schema | review_surface | boundary | other\", \"description\": \"short\", \"required_fix\": \"short\", \"severity\": \"blocker | high | medium | low\"}], \"required_fixes\": [\"short string\"], \"round1_critique\": {\"boundary_violation_detected\": \"boolean\", \"fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly\": \"boolean\", \"hallucination_risk_detected\": \"boolean\", \"missing_assumption_detected\": \"boolean\", \"operator_constraints_respected\": \"boolean\", \"overreach_detected\": \"boolean\"}, \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_supported_with_corrections | round1_supported_no_corrections | round1_needs_fix | blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\"}, \"hard_boundaries\": {\"accepted_overlay_writeback_allowed\": false, \"active_route_authority\": \"execution_state.json.next_entrypoint\", \"adapter_payload_allowed\": false, \"asset_binding_allowed\": false, \"asset_generation_or_acquisition_allowed\": false, \"candidate_consumption_guard_only\": true, \"candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings\": true, \"candidate_refs_writeback_allowed\": false, \"canonical_entity_uid_writeback_allowed\": false, \"canonical_kg_writeback_allowed\": false, \"canonical_uid_binding_acceptance_allowed\": false, \"deepseek_advisory_is_operator_production_acceptance\": false, \"deepseek_advisory_may_substitute_for_expert_advice\": true, \"deepseek_findings_have_direct_state_authority\": false, \"entity_store_writeback_allowed\": false, \"execution_state_next_entrypoint_unchanged\": true, \"feedback_intake_allowed\": false, \"held_row_promotion_allowed\": false, \"manual_provider_evidence_creation_allowed\": false, \"media_generation_allowed\": false, \"operator_evidence_creation_allowed\": false, \"operator_overlay_writeback_allowed\": false, \"operator_production_acceptance_claimed\": false, \"outputs_index_mutation_allowed\": false, \"provider_job_execution_allowed\": false, \"provider_specific_prompt_allowed\": false, \"raw_kg_writeback_allowed\": false, \"registry_content_review_packet_only\": true, \"repair_execution_allowed\": false, \"replay_execution_allowed\": false, \"route_transition_allowed\": false, \"row_mutation_allowed\": false, \"stage\": \"NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review\"}, \"input_fingerprint\": \"23269260df7032e6a5a44e490bc09cdf98e753604a19f249ab29850dcb7c4669\", \"previous_round\": {\"dir\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_implementation_deepseek_round1_20260607_1525\", \"parsed\": {\"confidence\": \"high\", \"finding_counts\": {\"high\": 1, \"low\": 2}, \"findings\": [{\"category\": \"boundary\", \"description\": \"Consumption guard gate blocks on pending deepseek advisory. The contract defines deepseek engagement as advisory-only and does not require its success for the guard to pass; all hard no-writeback/advisory-only boundaries are otherwise satisfied.\", \"required_fix\": \"Adjust gate logic so that deepseek advisory failures are treated as warnings and do not prevent the gate from returning pass, consistent with the advisory-only role specified in the contract.\", \"severity\": \"high\"}, {\"category\": \"fingerprint\", \"description\": \"NOW-33 gate omits target_source_fingerprint; the guard infers it from the selected registry and preflight gate. The inferred value matches the registry payload and preflight gate, providing sufficient linkage. This inference should be explicitly accepted rather than left as an unresolved warning.\", \"required_fix\": \"Document the inference as an acceptable warning-level linkage and ensure downstream consumers are aware it does not compromise source integrity.\", \"severity\": \"low\"}, {\"category\": \"schema\", \"description\": \"Candidate refs originally stored the surface under a legacy field name; the guard normalised this to matched_surface. This is a cosmetic change and does not affect data integrity or advisory-only semantics.\", \"required_fix\": \"None required; the normalization is acceptable.\", \"severity\": \"low\"}], \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\", \"parse_status\": \"pass\", \"raw_parsed\": {\"confidence\": \"high\", \"findings\": [{\"category\": \"boundary\", \"description\": \"Consumption guard gate blocks on pending deepseek advisory. The contract defines deepseek engagement as advisory-only and does not require its success for the guard to pass; all hard no-writeback/advisory-only boundaries are otherwise satisfied.\", \"required_fix\": \"Adjust gate logic so that deepseek advisory failures are treated as warnings and do not prevent the gate from returning pass, consistent with the advisory-only role specified in the contract.\", \"severity\": \"high\"}, {\"category\": \"fingerprint\", \"description\": \"NOW-33 gate omits target_source_fingerprint; the guard infers it from the selected registry and preflight gate. The inferred value matches the registry payload and preflight gate, providing sufficient linkage. This inference should be explicitly accepted rather than left as an unresolved warning.\", \"required_fix\": \"Document the inference as an acceptable warning-level linkage and ensure downstream consumers are aware it does not compromise source integrity.\", \"severity\": \"low\"}, {\"category\": \"schema\", \"description\": \"Candidate refs originally stored the surface under a legacy field name; the guard normalised this to matched_surface. This is a cosmetic change and does not affect data integrity or advisory-only semantics.\", \"required_fix\": \"None required; the normalization is acceptable.\", \"severity\": \"low\"}], \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\", \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"NOW33 CANDIDATE CONSUMPTION GUARD NO-WRITEBACK CLOSED\", \"required_fixes\": [\"Remove deepseek advisory pass dependency from consumption guard gate criteria; log failures as warnings only.\", \"Explicitly accept the target_source_fingerprint inference as a valid warning linkage in the guard gate and documentation.\"], \"scope_audit\": {\"candidate_refs_remain_advisory_only\": true, \"canonical_uid_binding_or_writeback_blocked\": true, \"deepseek_advisory_only\": true, \"kg_raw_entity_store_overlay_row_mutation_blocked\": true, \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning_acceptable\": true, \"provider_manual_evidence_route_output_index_blocked\": true, \"registry_content_review_packet_only\": true, \"surface_to_matched_surface_normalization_acceptable\": true}}, \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"NOW33 CANDIDATE CONSUMPTION GUARD NO-WRITEBACK CLOSED\", \"required_fixes\": [\"Remove deepseek advisory pass dependency from consumption guard gate criteria; log failures as warnings only.\", \"Explicitly accept the target_source_fingerprint inference as a valid warning linkage in the guard gate and documentation.\"], \"round_id\": \"round1\", \"scope_audit\": {\"candidate_refs_remain_advisory_only\": true, \"canonical_uid_binding_or_writeback_blocked\": true, \"deepseek_advisory_only\": true, \"kg_raw_entity_store_overlay_row_mutation_blocked\": true, \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning_acceptable\": true, \"provider_manual_evidence_route_output_index_blocked\": true, \"registry_content_review_packet_only\": true, \"surface_to_matched_surface_normalization_acceptable\": true}}, \"record\": {\"advisory_only\": true, \"call_status\": \"success\", \"created_at\": \"2026-06-07T07:26:23.577494Z\", \"message_fingerprint\": \"2f33e2ba1a89f91201982331a911b3d93c464d38afcfbfc8246e45cdff79998b\", \"not_evidence_or_acceptance_or_route_authority\": true, \"parse_status\": \"pass\", \"provider_meta\": {\"base_url\": \"https://api.deepseek.com/chat/completions\", \"max_tokens\": 32000, \"model\": \"deepseek-v4-pro\", \"provider\": \"deepseek_reviewer\", \"reasoning_effort\": \"max\", \"skipped\": false, \"temperature\": 0.0, \"thinking_type\": \"enabled\", \"timeout_seconds\": 600}, \"round_id\": \"round1\", \"stage\": \"NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review\", \"version\": \"now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_deepseek_consultation.v1\"}}, \"role\": \"DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max independent advisory reviewer. Advisory-only.\", \"round_id\": \"round2\", \"source_guard_packet\": {\"gate\": {\"advisory_only\": true, \"block_reasons\": [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"], \"blocked_registry_leak_check\": {\"blocked_registry_entity_leak_count\": 0, \"candidate_uid_missing_from_registry_count\": 0, \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings\": true, \"candidate_ref_count_check\": {\"actual_candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"gap_declared_candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"gate_declared_candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"mismatches\": [], \"row_declared_count_mismatch_count\": 0, \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"candidate_ref_structural_check\": {\"candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"legacy_surface_normalization_count\": 1476, \"schema_normalization_notes\": [\"candidate refs used legacy surface field; output normalized it to matched_surface\"], \"status\": \"pass\", \"structural_missing_count\": 0}, \"candidate_refs_writeback_allowed\": false, \"canonical_uid_binding_acceptance_or_writeback_authorized\": false, \"canonical_uid_writeback_check\": {\"candidate_refs_with_forbidden_ref_writeback\": 0, \"canonical_uid_rows\": [], \"gate_canonical_entity_uid_bound_count\": 0, \"manifest_rows_with_canonical_entity_uids\": 0, \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"created_at\": \"2026-06-07T07:24:29.204568Z\", \"deepseek_advisory_status\": {\"advisory_only\": true, \"failure_count\": 7, \"failures\": [\"implementation_deepseek_round1_parse_not_pass\", \"implementation_deepseek_round1_call_not_success\", \"implementation_deepseek_round1_not_supporting\", \"implementation_deepseek_round2_parse_not_pass\", \"implementation_deepseek_round2_call_not_success\", \"implementation_deepseek_round2_not_supporting\", \"implementation_deepseek_round2_confidence_not_high\"], \"not_evidence_or_acceptance_or_route_authority\": true, \"round1\": {}, \"round2\": {}, \"status\": \"pending_deepseek_advisory\"}, \"forbidden_side_effect_counts\": {\"accepted_overlay_write_count\": 0, \"adapter_payload_count\": 0, \"canonical_kg_writeback_count\": 0, \"feedback_intake_count\": 0, \"manual_provider_evidence_count\": 0, \"media_generation_count\": 0, \"operator_evidence_creation_count\": 0, \"operator_overlay_write_count\": 0, \"outputs_index_mutation_count\": 0, \"provider_job_execution_count\": 0, \"provider_prompt_count\": 0, \"raw_kg_writeback_count\": 0, \"repair_execution_count\": 0, \"replay_action_count\": 0}, \"gate_status\": \"pending_now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_implementation_deepseek_advisory\", \"input_integrity\": {\"checked_artifact_count\": 17, \"mismatch_count\": 0, \"mismatches\": [], \"missing_artifact_keys\": [], \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"next_entrypoint_unchanged\": true, \"non_binding_flag_check\": {\"failure_count\": 0, \"failures\": [], \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"not_evidence_or_acceptance_or_route_authority\": true, \"now33_macro_closeout_boundary\": \"not_closed\", \"output_forbidden_claim_scan\": {\"finding_count\": 0, \"findings\": [], \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"pass\": false, \"policy\": {\"accepted_overlay_writeback_allowed\": false, \"active_route_authority\": \"execution_state.json.next_entrypoint\", \"adapter_payload_allowed\": false, \"asset_binding_allowed\": false, \"asset_generation_or_acquisition_allowed\": false, \"candidate_consumption_guard_only\": true, \"candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings\": true, \"candidate_refs_writeback_allowed\": false, \"canonical_entity_uid_writeback_allowed\": false, \"canonical_kg_writeback_allowed\": false, \"canonical_uid_binding_acceptance_allowed\": false, \"deepseek_advisory_is_operator_production_acceptance\": false, \"deepseek_advisory_may_substitute_for_expert_advice\": true, \"deepseek_findings_have_direct_state_authority\": false, \"entity_store_writeback_allowed\": false, \"execution_state_next_entrypoint_unchanged\": true, \"feedback_intake_allowed\": false, \"held_row_promotion_allowed\": false, \"manual_provider_evidence_creation_allowed\": false, \"media_generation_allowed\": false, \"operator_evidence_creation_allowed\": false, \"operator_overlay_writeback_allowed\": false, \"operator_production_acceptance_claimed\": false, \"outputs_index_mutation_allowed\": false, \"provider_job_execution_allowed\": false, \"provider_specific_prompt_allowed\": false, \"raw_kg_writeback_allowed\": false, \"registry_content_review_packet_only\": true, \"repair_execution_allowed\": false, \"replay_execution_allowed\": false, \"route_transition_allowed\": false, \"row_mutation_allowed\": false, \"stage\": \"NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review\"}, \"registry_path_check\": {\"expected_registry_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\", \"mismatches\": [], \"missing_required_path_keys\": [], \"observed_paths\": {\"now33_input_current_registry_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\", \"now33_registry_discovery_current_registry_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\", \"preflight_selected_candidate_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\", \"target_registry_candidate\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\"}, \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"review_queue_coverage\": {\"candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"candidate_ref_review_queue_rows\": 1476, \"registry_content_review_queue_rows\": 28, \"status\": \"pass\", \"unblocked_registry_entity_count\": 28}, \"source_fingerprint_check\": {\"inference_basis\": \"NOW-33 gate omits target_source_fingerprint; selected registry path and registry payload fingerprint are used as warning-level linkage\", \"required_absent_keys\": [], \"status\": \"warning_inferred_from_selected_registry\", \"unique_nonempty_fingerprints\": [\"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\"], \"values\": {\"built_candidate_preflight_gate\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\", \"now33_reference_rerun_gate\": \"\", \"selected_registry_payload\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\", \"target_registry_build_gate\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\"}}, \"stage\": \"NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review\", \"status\": \"pending_deepseek_advisory\", \"summary\": {\"accepted_overlay_write_count\": 0, \"adapter_payload_count\": 0, \"blocked_registry_entity_count\": 685, \"candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"candidate_ref_review_queue_rows\": 1476, \"canonical_kg_writeback_count\": 0, \"feedback_intake_count\": 0, \"legacy_surface_normalization_count\": 1476, \"manual_provider_evidence_count\": 0, \"media_generation_count\": 0, \"missing_high_value_surface_count\": 0, \"now33_manifest_row_count\": 1638, \"operator_evidence_creation_count\": 0, \"operator_overlay_write_count\": 0, \"output_forbidden_claim_finding_count\": 0, \"outputs_index_mutation_count\": 0, \"provider_job_execution_count\": 0, \"provider_prompt_count\": 0, \"raw_kg_writeback_count\": 0, \"registry_review_queue_rows\": 28, \"repair_execution_count\": 0, \"replay_action_count\": 0, \"rows_with_candidate_refs\": 1056, \"surface_collision_count\": 0, \"target_registry_entity_count\": 713, \"unblocked_registry_entity_count\": 28, \"validator_failure_count\": 1, \"validator_warning_count\": 2}, \"version\": \"now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.v1\", \"warnings\": [\"now33_gate_missing_target_source_fingerprint_inferred_from_selected_registry\", \"candidate_ref_surface_field_normalized_to_matched_surface\"]}, \"gate_ref\": {\"exists\": true, \"path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_20260607_152428/NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.json\", \"sha256\": \"9db6e70fd154ce737d9448d0c114e1438ccd435c00d12e653271d026c35a8d34\", \"size_bytes\": 8299}, \"guard_report_checks\": {\"blocked_registry_leak_check\": {\"blocked_registry_entity_leak_count\": 0, \"candidate_uid_missing_from_registry_count\": 0, \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"candidate_ref_count_check\": {\"actual_candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"gap_declared_candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"gate_declared_candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"mismatches\": [], \"row_declared_count_mismatch_count\": 0, \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"candidate_ref_structural_check\": {\"candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"legacy_surface_normalization_count\": 1476, \"schema_normalization_notes\": [\"candidate refs used legacy surface field; output normalized it to matched_surface\"], \"status\": \"pass\", \"structural_missing_count\": 0}, \"canonical_uid_writeback_check\": {\"candidate_refs_with_forbidden_ref_writeback\": 0, \"canonical_uid_rows\": [], \"gate_canonical_entity_uid_bound_count\": 0, \"manifest_rows_with_canonical_entity_uids\": 0, \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"input_integrity\": {\"checked_artifact_count\": 17, \"mismatch_count\": 0, \"mismatches\": [], \"missing_artifact_keys\": [], \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"non_binding_flag_check\": {\"failure_count\": 0, \"failures\": [], \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"registry_path_check\": {\"expected_registry_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\", \"mismatches\": [], \"missing_required_path_keys\": [], \"observed_paths\": {\"now33_input_current_registry_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\", \"now33_registry_discovery_current_registry_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\", \"preflight_selected_candidate_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\", \"target_registry_candidate\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\"}, \"status\": \"pass\"}, \"review_queue_coverage\": {\"candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"candidate_ref_review_queue_rows\": 1476, \"registry_content_review_queue_rows\": 28, \"status\": \"pass\", \"unblocked_registry_entity_count\": 28}, \"source_fingerprint_check\": {\"inference_basis\": \"NOW-33 gate omits target_source_fingerprint; selected registry path and registry payload fingerprint are used as warning-level linkage\", \"required_absent_keys\": [], \"status\": \"warning_inferred_from_selected_registry\", \"unique_nonempty_fingerprints\": [\"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\"], \"values\": {\"built_candidate_preflight_gate\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\", \"now33_reference_rerun_gate\": \"\", \"selected_registry_payload\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\", \"target_registry_build_gate\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\"}}}, \"report_ref\": {\"exists\": true, \"path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_20260607_152428/NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_report.json\", \"sha256\": \"c8261f72ba6fa92a165f39d351a3a9a5d41678a090f0839657d04aaecc99b404\", \"size_bytes\": 10993}, \"review_summary\": {\"advisory_only\": true, \"blocked_registry_entity_count\": 685, \"candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"candidate_ref_review_queue_rows\": 1476, \"canonical_writeback_allowed\": false, \"created_at\": \"2026-06-07T07:24:29.144166Z\", \"missing_high_value_surface_count\": 0, \"not_evidence_or_acceptance_or_route_authority\": true, \"now33_manifest_row_count\": 1638, \"registry_review_queue_rows\": 28, \"risk_flag_counts\": {\"high_frequency_surface\": 1111, \"multiple_candidate_refs_in_row\": 799, \"object_or_location_surface\": 19, \"role_or_title_surface\": 194}, \"rows_with_candidate_refs\": 1056, \"stage\": \"NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review\", \"status\": \"review_packet_built\", \"surface_collision_count\": 0, \"target_registry_entity_count\": 713, \"top_surfaces\": [{\"count\": 418, \"surface\": \"宝玉\"}, {\"count\": 267, \"surface\": \"凤姐\"}, {\"count\": 120, \"surface\": \"黛玉\"}, {\"count\": 73, \"surface\": \"秦钟\"}, {\"count\": 66, \"surface\": \"贾政\"}, {\"count\": 55, \"surface\": \"宝钗\"}, {\"count\": 52, \"surface\": \"贾珍\"}, {\"count\": 52, \"surface\": \"刘姥姥\"}, {\"count\": 48, \"surface\": \"秦氏\"}, {\"count\": 47, \"surface\": \"尤氏\"}, {\"count\": 45, \"surface\": \"贾母\"}, {\"count\": 37, \"surface\": \"贾琏\"}, {\"count\": 35, \"surface\": \"平儿\"}, {\"count\": 30, \"surface\": \"贾雨村\"}, {\"count\": 18, \"surface\": \"李嬷嬷\"}, {\"count\": 17, \"surface\": \"封肃\"}, {\"count\": 16, \"surface\": \"薛姨妈\"}, {\"count\": 13, \"surface\": \"李贵\"}, {\"count\": 10, \"surface\": \"甄士隐\"}, {\"count\": 10, \"surface\": \"李纨\"}], \"unblocked_registry_entity_count\": 28, \"version\": \"now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard.v1\"}, \"review_summary_ref\": {\"exists\": true, \"path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_20260607_152428/NOW_33_reference_candidate_review_summary.json\", \"sha256\": \"98d385308fa0221fab811b0d79469010f51297ade5c4c350b26fa98b7dadf0ef\", \"size_bytes\": 2112}, \"source_guard_run_dir\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_20260607_152428\", \"validation_failures\": [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"], \"validation_ref\": {\"exists\": true, \"path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_20260607_152428/NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_validation_report.json\", \"sha256\": \"fb3d6ec74bd85c35b30b0e6624c5c6216a7924506451e4941deec933622751ac\", \"size_bytes\": 7988}, \"validation_summary\": {\"accepted_overlay_write_count\": 0, \"adapter_payload_count\": 0, \"blocked_registry_entity_count\": 685, \"candidate_ref_count\": 1476, \"candidate_ref_review_queue_rows\": 1476, \"canonical_kg_writeback_count\": 0, \"feedback_intake_count\": 0, \"legacy_surface_normalization_count\": 1476, \"manual_provider_evidence_count\": 0, \"media_generation_count\": 0, \"missing_high_value_surface_count\": 0, \"now33_manifest_row_count\": 1638, \"operator_evidence_creation_count\": 0, \"operator_overlay_write_count\": 0, \"output_forbidden_claim_finding_count\": 0, \"outputs_index_mutation_count\": 0, \"provider_job_execution_count\": 0, \"provider_prompt_count\": 0, \"raw_kg_writeback_count\": 0, \"registry_review_queue_rows\": 28, \"repair_execution_count\": 0, \"replay_action_count\": 0, \"rows_with_candidate_refs\": 1056, \"surface_collision_count\": 0, \"target_registry_entity_count\": 713, \"unblocked_registry_entity_count\": 28, \"validator_failure_count\": 1, \"validator_warning_count\": 2}, \"validation_warnings\": [\"now33_gate_missing_target_source_fingerprint_inferred_from_selected_registry\", \"candidate_ref_surface_field_normalized_to_matched_surface\"]}, \"task\": \"Audit NOW-33 candidate consumption guard and registry-content review. Return JSON only.\"}"
    }
  ],
  "message_fingerprint": "968889d7b8ac69b02518a3090f782e210ea37eb2d691cf1cd2ed6a432aefab88",
  "response_text": "{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"final_recommendation\": \"Fix guard to enforce mandatory fingerprint block per contract and remove deepseek advisory dependency; re-issue round1 advisory with corrected scope.\",\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Guard gate blocks on pending deepseek advisory, but contract defines advisory as advisory-only and does not require it to pass. This overreaches the contract.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Remove deepseek advisory pass dependency from guard gate criteria; treat failures as warnings only.\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Guard gate does not block when target_source_fingerprint is absent from NOW-33 reference rerun gate, contrary to mandatory block rule in contract. It only warns instead of blocking.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Add block condition for missing target_source_fingerprint in any required gate as per consumption guard rules; reject inference as sufficient to pass.\",\n      \"severity\": \"blocker\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"fingerprint\",\n      \"description\": \"Round1 advisory incorrectly recommends accepting fingerprint inference as a valid warning linkage and not blocking, missing the contract's must-block requirement.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Correct round1 recommendation to enforce mandatory block when fingerprint is absent from any required gate.\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"required_fixes\": [\n    \"Remove deepseek advisory dependency from guard gate block criteria; log failures as warnings only.\",\n    \"Enforce block when target_source_fingerprint is absent from NOW-33 rerun gate as required by consumption guard rules; do not accept inference as sufficient.\",\n    \"Update round1 advisory to reflect mandatory fingerprint block requirement.\"\n  ],\n  \"round1_critique\": {\n    \"boundary_violation_detected\": true,\n    \"fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly\": true,\n    \"hallucination_risk_detected\": false,\n    \"missing_assumption_detected\": true,\n    \"operator_constraints_respected\": true,\n    \"overreach_detected\": true\n  },\n  \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_needs_fix\"\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "id": "9b56a6e4-87b3-456c-aba5-15981200ba6a",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "created": 1780817203,
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "choices": [
      {
        "index": 0,
        "message": {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"final_recommendation\": \"Fix guard to enforce mandatory fingerprint block per contract and remove deepseek advisory dependency; re-issue round1 advisory with corrected scope.\",\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Guard gate blocks on pending deepseek advisory, but contract defines advisory as advisory-only and does not require it to pass. This overreaches the contract.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Remove deepseek advisory pass dependency from guard gate criteria; treat failures as warnings only.\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Guard gate does not block when target_source_fingerprint is absent from NOW-33 reference rerun gate, contrary to mandatory block rule in contract. It only warns instead of blocking.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Add block condition for missing target_source_fingerprint in any required gate as per consumption guard rules; reject inference as sufficient to pass.\",\n      \"severity\": \"blocker\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"fingerprint\",\n      \"description\": \"Round1 advisory incorrectly recommends accepting fingerprint inference as a valid warning linkage and not blocking, missing the contract's must-block requirement.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Correct round1 recommendation to enforce mandatory block when fingerprint is absent from any required gate.\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"required_fixes\": [\n    \"Remove deepseek advisory dependency from guard gate block criteria; log failures as warnings only.\",\n    \"Enforce block when target_source_fingerprint is absent from NOW-33 rerun gate as required by consumption guard rules; do not accept inference as sufficient.\",\n    \"Update round1 advisory to reflect mandatory fingerprint block requirement.\"\n  ],\n  \"round1_critique\": {\n    \"boundary_violation_detected\": true,\n    \"fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly\": true,\n    \"hallucination_risk_detected\": false,\n    \"missing_assumption_detected\": true,\n    \"operator_constraints_respected\": true,\n    \"overreach_detected\": true\n  },\n  \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_needs_fix\"\n}",
          "reasoning_content": "We need to audit the round1 critique and the guard packet for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, missing assumptions, source fingerprint handling, schema normalization, and operator constraints. We must produce a JSON response with confidence, recommendation, findings, required_fixes, round1_critique, round2_verdict, and possibly other fields as required by expected_json_schema.\n\nThe active route and contract excerpt give context. The hard_boundaries give strict no-go rules.\n\nWe are Round 2 auditor. We have the previous round (round1) output, which gave findings and a closeout recommendation. Our task is to critique round1 and the guard packet.\n\nLet's parse the expected_json_schema: it expects a JSON object with:\n- confidence: \"high | medium | low\"\n- final_recommendation: \"short string\"\n- findings: array of objects with category, description, required_fix, severity.\n- required_fixes: array of strings\n- round1_critique: object with booleans for boundary_violation_detected, fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly, hallucination_risk_detected, missing_assumption_detected, operator_constraints_respected, overreach_detected.\n- round2_verdict: one of four strings.\n\nWe need to audit round1 and the guard packet. Let's examine the provided data.\n\nThe guard packet has a gate that shows block_reasons: [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"]. So the gate is blocking due to pending deepseek advisory. The round1 advisory recommended to remove this dependency, treating it as a warning. That seems correct: the contract states deepseek is advisory-only, not required for guard pass. The gate currently blocks on it, which is a potential overreach. Round1 spotted that and gave a fix.\n\nRound1 also noted fingerprint inference: NOW-33 gate omitted target_source_fingerprint, but the guard inferred it from selected registry and preflight gate, which matched. Round1 said this inference is acceptable, but should be explicitly documented as a warning. That seems reasonable.\n\nRound1 noted schema normalization: candidate refs stored surface under legacy field name, guard normalized to matched_surface. That's cosmetic, no integrity issue.\n\nRound1 declared overall_verdict \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\" and recommended closeout label.\n\nNow, as Round 2, we need to critique that Round 1 assessment and the guard packet. Are there any issues missed? Any overreach in the guard packet itself? Any hallucination in round1's findings?\n\nLet's review the guard packet thoroughly.\n\nThe gate is at path: /wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/.../NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.json\nIt reports:\n- pass: false\n- block_reasons: [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"]\n- deepseek_advisory_status: status \"pending_deepseek_advisory\", with failure_count 7, failures listed. It seems the guard implementation itself ran deepseek rounds? Actually, the contract says \"Run two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max advisory rounds over the contract and output packet if the implementation asserts closeout/readiness.\" So the guard implementation may have tried to run deepseek and failed? The failures list: round1 and round2 parse/call not success/not supporting, confidence not high. But note that the source_guard_packet includes a \"record\" object that appears to be a deepseek consultation record? It says \"round_id\": \"round1\", \"stage\": \"NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review\". That record shows \"call_status\": \"success\", \"parse_status\": \"pass\", and the parsed content matches the round1 parsed we have. Wait, the record is from a deepseek consultation, likely the same round1 we are critiquing. However, the gate's deepseek_advisory_status.round1 and round2 are empty objects, and the failures list says round1 and round2 parse/call not success, not supporting, confidence not high. That seems contradictory. Possibly the guard implementation's deepseek rounds failed, but the provided \"previous_round\" is a separate successful round1? Let's disentangle.\n\nIn the source_guard_packet, there is a \"record\" object that represents a deepseek consultation that was run as part of the guard implementation? It says \"created_at\": \"2026-06-07T07:26:23.577494Z\", which matches the gate's created_at? The gate created_at is \"2026-06-07T07:24:29.204568Z\". So the record is later. The record's parsed content is exactly the round1 findings we see under \"previous_round.parsed\". The guard packet also contains \"validation_failures\": [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"]. The validation report likely reflects this.\n\nThe crucial point: the guard packet's gate blocks due to deepseek advisory pending. This is a potential boundary violation because the contract explicitly says DeepSeek advisory is advisory-only, and the guard's pass criteria should not depend on it. The contract says \"The guard may pass with review warnings if false-positive, missing-surface, alias-collision, or type-uncertainty risks are present, provided they are explicit review queue items and no forbidden writeback/acceptance authority is created.\" It doesn't say the guard must block if deepseek fails or is pending. Actually, the contract says: \"The guard must block if any of the following are true:\" and lists many conditions, none of which include deepseek advisory status. So adding a block condition for deepseek advisory pending is indeed an overreach. Round1 correctly caught that.\n\nNow, are there any other issues? Let's examine the fingerprint handling. The contract requires:\n\"Verify that `target_source_fingerprint` exists and matches across the target registry build gate, built-candidate preflight gate, and NOW-33 reference rerun gate.\"\nThe gate's source_fingerprint_check shows status: \"warning_inferred_from_selected_registry\". It notes that NOW-33 gate omits target_source_fingerprint, but it inferred from selected registry and preflight gate. The gate still has a warning, not a block. That's appropriate? The contract says \"must block if ... target_source_fingerprint is absent from any ... or the values differ.\" The NOW-33 rerun gate is one of them, and it is absent there. The guard's fingerprint check status is warning, not block, but the gate overall still didn't pass? Actually, the gate pass is false, but block_reasons only include deepseek advisory, not fingerprint. So the guard didn't block on fingerprint because it inferred and treated as warning. But the contract says must block if absent from any. So the inference might be an overreach because it circumvented a required block? However, the fingerprint was inferrable and matched, so perhaps the implementation considered that the NOW-33 gate didn't need to have it explicitly? Let's read the contract: \"Verify that `target_source_fingerprint` exists and matches across the target registry build gate, built-candidate preflight gate, and NOW-33 reference rerun gate.\" The guard must verify existence. If it's absent in NOW-33 rerun gate, that is a verification failure. The guard should block if verification fails. The guard instead inferred and passed with warning. This might be a missing block. The round1 commentary accepted the inference as acceptable and recommended documenting it. But from a strict boundary perspective, the contract says must block if absent. The guard didn't block; it only warned. That could be a boundary violation (under-blocking). However, the contract also might allow a pragmatic interpretation: if the fingerprint can be reliably inferred from other gates that share the same source, it might be okay to warn instead of block. But as an auditor, we must decide if this is a violation. The hard_boundaries given: \"candidate_consumption_guard_only\": true, but no explicit override on fingerprint. The contract is clear: must block if absent. The guard's own validation summary has validator_warning_count: 2, but no failure for fingerprint. The validation_failures only lists deepseek advisory pending. So the guard treated the missing fingerprint as a warning, not a failure. That might be a missing block condition.\n\nRound1 said: \"The inferred value matches the registry payload and preflight gate, providing sufficient linkage. This inference should be explicitly accepted rather than left as an unresolved warning.\" It didn't flag it as a block requirement. Perhaps round1 missed that the contract mandates block for absence? Let's re-read the contract excerpt under \"Consumption Guard Rules\": \"The guard must block if any of the following are true: ... target_source_fingerprint is absent from any target registry build, built-candidate preflight, or NOW-33 reference rerun gate, or the values differ.\" Indeed, it's a must-block condition. The guard did not block on it; instead, it inferred and gave warning. That's a boundary violation (failure to block when contract requires). Round1 failed to catch this. Round1's round1_critique should have reported that. In our round2, we need to point this out.\n\nAlso, check if the guard's fingerprint_check inference is honest: it explicitly states the inference basis. That's fine, but the contract requires block. So round1's assessment that it's acceptable is a missing assumption (assumed inference overrides contract requirement). That could be hallucination risk? Not exactly, but overreach by round1 in approving an under-block.\n\nNow, check for any overreach in round1's own analysis. Round1's findings:\n1. High severity: deepseek advisory dependency - correctly identified.\n2. Low severity: fingerprint inference - they said it's acceptable, but actually the contract requires block; so it's a miss.\n3. Low severity: schema normalization - acceptable.\n\nRound1's required_fixes: \"Remove deepseek advisory pass dependency from consumption guard gate criteria; log failures as warnings only.\", and \"Explicitly accept the target_source_fingerprint inference as a valid warning linkage in the guard gate and documentation.\" That second fix is actually contrary to contract if it suggests not blocking. The guard should block on missing fingerprint. So round1's recommendation is itself a boundary violation proposal.\n\nRound1's overall verdict: \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\". But the guard is not fully compliant due to fingerprint blocking. So round1's verdict is too optimistic.\n\nNow, the guard packet also has \"now33_macro_closeout_boundary\": \"not_closed\". That's correct; the overall NOW33 is not closed. But for this consumer guard stage, the guard gate should be pass or fail based on the contract. The deepseek advisory dependency is wrong; fingerprint handling may need fix.\n\nWe need to produce round2_verdict: The possible values are: \"round1_supported_with_corrections\", \"round1_supported_no_corrections\", \"round1_needs_fix\", \"blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\". Given the fingerprint issue, round1 definitely needs fix. So we should select \"round1_needs_fix\". But also, does the guard packet need a block? The round2_verdict could be \"blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\" if the guard implementation's flaws are so severe that the stage cannot proceed. But the guard is still pending; it's not a permanent block. The advisory could result in \"round1_needs_fix\" meaning we need to re-execute the guard with corrected logic. I think \"round1_needs_fix\" is appropriate.\n\nNow, round1_critique object:\n- boundary_violation_detected: boolean - round1 might have missed the fingerprint block requirement, so it didn't detect that boundary violation. But the question is: \"round1_critique: { boundary_violation_detected: ... }\" This likely expects to report whether round1 itself committed any boundary violation, or whether round1 detected any in the guard packet? The prompt says: \"critique Round 1 and the guard packet for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, missing assumptions, source fingerprint handling, schema normalization, and operator constraints.\" So the round1_critique object is for us to critique round1's performance. The fields:\n- boundary_violation_detected: presumably did round1 detect any boundary violations? They detected the deepseek advisory overreach (which is a boundary violation). But they missed the fingerprint contract requirement. So we could say boundary_violation_detected: true (they detected one), but also they missed one. However, the field might be a single boolean indicating whether round1 itself had a boundary violation? Let's interpret. The expected_json_schema: \"round1_critique\": {\"boundary_violation_detected\": \"boolean\", ...}. It might be \"did round1 detect a boundary violation?\" The description in the system prompt: \"Return compact JSON only. Advisory-only.\" and we are auditing. So we can set boundary_violation_detected: true, because round1 did detect the deepseek advisory dependency as a boundary issue. However, we could also say false because it didn't detect the fingerprint one? Unclear. I think it's better to treat each as separate findings in the findings array, and the round1_critique fields reflect our overall assessment of round1's correctness/errors. So I'd set:\n- boundary_violation_detected: true (round1 detected at least one boundary violation)\n- fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly: true? Round1 handled the fingerprint inference honestly by acknowledging the inference and recommending documentation. But it didn't enforce the contract, so maybe it's a missing assumption. I'd say true because it didn't hallucinate the fingerprint.\n- hallucination_risk_detected: false (round1 didn't hallucinate)\n- missing_assumption_detected: true (round1 assumed fingerprint inference is acceptable without consulting the contract's explicit must-block rule)\n- operator_constraints_respected: true (round1 respected that deepseek advisory is advisory and didn't try to give it authority)\n- overreach_detected: true (round1 overreached by recommending not blocking on fingerprint, contrary to contract)\n\nAlternatively, we can set these based on what round1 did wrong: round1 itself had an overreach (recommending to accept fingerprint inference and not block). So overreach_detected should be true. boundary_violation_detected: round1's recommendation violates the contract boundary, so we could say round1 committed a boundary violation. I'd set that true. missing_assumption_detected: true because round1 assumed the fingerprint inference is sufficient without considering the mandatory block. hallucination_risk_detected: false, because round1 didn't fabricate data.\n\nNow, findings array: we should list the issues we find in both round1 and the guard packet. The guard packet's issues:\n1. Deepseek advisory dependency overreach (blocking on advisory). Round1 already caught.\n2. Missing fingerprint block: guard should have blocked on absent fingerprint from NOW-33 rerun gate per contract, but it warned instead. Round1 missed this.\n3. (Maybe) other? Check schema normalization: round1 accepted it; that's fine. No issue there.\n4. Could there be any other boundary violation? The guard has block_reasons only deepseek, but should also have fingerprint block if contract strict. However, note that the fingerprint_check status is \"warning_inferred_from_selected_registry\", and the gate pass is false anyway due to deepseek. So even if fingerprint block was added, the gate would still be block for deepseek. But the fingerprint issue is separate.\n5. Are there any missing assumptions about the contract's allowed work? The contract says verification must block if those conditions. The guard didn't. So it's a validation failure.\n\nThus, our findings:\n- Finding 1: (category: boundary, severity: high) Deepseek advisory dependency causes gate block, but contract defines advisory-only; round1 correctly identified. Required fix: remove dependency.\n- Finding 2: (category: boundary, severity: blocker) Guard failed to block on absent target_source_fingerprint in NOW-33 rerun gate as required by contract; it only warned. Required fix: add block condition per contract.\n- Finding 3: (category: fingerprint, severity: high) Round1's recommendation to treat fingerprint inference as acceptable warning is a violation of the contract's explicit must-block rule. Required fix: correct round1 recommendation and enforce block.\n- (Maybe add a finding about round1's overall closeout recommendation being premature due to fingerprint issue.)\n\nLet's check if there are any other boundary issues: The guard packet's \"next_entrypoint_unchanged\" is true, which is good. Output forbidden claim scan passed. Input integrity passed. Registry path check passed. Review queue coverage matches. All good.\n\nBut we should also audit round1's statement about \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning_acceptable\": true. That itself is an error because it's not acceptable per contract.\n\nNow, we need to output confidence: high (since we have clear evidence from contract and guard).\n\nfinal_recommendation: Something like \"Fix guard to block on missing fingerprint per contract and remove deepseek advisory dependency; re-evaluate round1 advisory.\"\n\nrequired_fixes: [\"Remove deepseek advisory dependency from guard gate block criteria; log failures as warnings only.\", \"Enforce block when target_source_fingerprint is absent from NOW-33 rerun gate as required by consumption guard rules; do not accept inference as sufficient.\", \"Update round1 advisory to reflect mandatory fingerprint block requirement.\"]\n\nNow, round2_verdict: \"round1_needs_fix\" seems correct. Could also be \"blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\" if we want to halt the pipeline. But since the guard can be fixed and the stage is not yet passed, \"round1_needs_fix\" is appropriate.\n\nNow, structure JSON as per expected_json_schema.\n\nLet's double-check the contract text: \"The guard must block if any of the following are true: ... - `target_source_fingerprint` is absent from any target registry build, built-candidate preflight, or NOW-33 reference rerun gate, or the values differ.\" Therefore, absence in NOW-33 rerun gate is a must-block. The guard implementation's source_fingerprint_check reports status \"warning_inferred_from_selected_registry\", but the guard did not include this as a block reason. The block_reasons array only has deepseek advisory. So the guard is not compliant. Round1 missed this. Our round2 must flag it.\n\nNow, round1_critique fields: I'll set:\n- boundary_violation_detected: true (because round1 identified one but missed another; but overall we could say it detected some boundary violations; but the field might be ambiguous. I'll set it to true as it detected the deepseek one. Alternatively, we might set it to false if the criterion is \"round1 itself violated a boundary\", but likely it's \"did round1 detect any boundary violation?\" I'll go with true because the description says \"Return compact JSON only.\" and \"critique Round 1 and the guard packet for ... boundary violations\". So the object fields are likely our judgment on round1's performance: whether round1 detected boundary violations, handled fingerprint honestly, had hallucination, missed assumptions, respected operator constraints, and had overreach. I'll interpret as:\n- boundary_violation_detected: round1 detected some boundary violation (the deepseek dependency) - true.\n- fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly: round1 honestly reported the inference, didn't hide anything - true.\n- hallucination_risk_detected: round1 didn't hallucinate - false.\n- missing_assumption_detected: round1 assumed contract allowed inference as warning instead of block, which is a missing assumption - true.\n- operator_constraints_respected: round1 didn't claim production acceptance or anything - true.\n- overreach_detected: round1 overreached by recommending to accept fingerprint inference as acceptable warning, which would violate contract - true.\n\nThat seems coherent.\n\nNow, produce JSON. Ensure it matches the expected schema: no extra fields beyond what's required? The schema shows \"confidence\", \"final_recommendation\", \"findings\", \"required_fixes\", \"round1_critique\", \"round2_verdict\". Also, it had \"round1_critique\" keys: boundary_violation_detected, fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly, hallucination_risk_detected, missing_assumption_detected, operator_constraints_respected, overreach_detected. We'll include them.\n\nThe findings array must have objects with category, description, required_fix, severity. We'll create entries.\n\nLet's draft:\n\nFindings:\n1. category: \"boundary\", severity: \"high\", description: \"Guard gate blocks on pending deepseek advisory, but contract defines advisory as advisory-only and does not require it to pass. This overreaches the contract.\", required_fix: \"Remove deepseek advisory pass dependency from guard gate criteria; treat failures as warnings.\"\n2. category: \"boundary\", severity: \"blocker\", description: \"Guard gate does not block when target_source_fingerprint is absent from NOW-33 reference rerun gate, contrary to mandatory block rule in contract. It only warns instead of blocking.\", required_fix: \"Add block condition for missing target_source_fingerprint in any required gate as per consumption guard rules; reject inference as sufficient to pass.\"\n3. category: \"fingerprint\", severity: \"high\", description: \"Round1 advisory incorrectly recommends accepting fingerprint inference as a valid warning linkage and not blocking, missing the contract's must-block requirement.\", required_fix: \"Correct round1 recommendation to enforce mandatory block when fingerprint is absent.\"\n4. (maybe) category: \"schema\", severity: \"low\", description: \"Surface field normalization is acceptable and does not impact integrity.\", required_fix: \"None, acceptable.\" But that's not an issue; we don't need to include findings that are not problems. The instructions: \"critique Round 1 and the guard packet for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, missing assumptions, source fingerprint handling, schema normalization, and operator constraints.\" So we can include the schema normalization handling as a positive or neutral finding. But since it's not an error, we can omit or mention it as a low info. I'll include it as a low-severity finding just to note it's correct.\n\nBetter to include all notable aspects. The round1 had a finding about schema normalization, which was correct. So we can include a finding: \"Schema normalization of 'surface' to 'matched_surface' is appropriate and does not violate boundaries.\" Not necessary but okay.\n\nBut the expected schema doesn't require us to list every check; just findings of issues. The findings array in the expected schema is for \"findings\" from our audit. So we can list the issues we found. The schema normalization is not an issue. I'll skip it.\n\nI'll produce two main findings: the deepseek advisory overreach (which round1 caught) and the fingerprint blocking gap (which round1 missed and is a blocker). Also a third finding about round1's overreach in recommending fingerprint acceptance.\n\nNow, required_fixes: I'll combine.\n\nNow, round2_verdict: \"round1_needs_fix\" - because round1 missed a critical block condition.\n\nDouble-check if any other criterion might be violated: Operator constraints? Round1 did not propose operator evidence, so fine. Hard boundaries: all respected except the fingerprint. Also, the guard packet's \"not_evidence_or_acceptance_or_route_authority\": true, so fine.\n\nNow, prepare final JSON.\n\nI'll set confidence: \"high\".\n\nfinal_recommendation: \"Fix guard to enforce mandatory fingerprint block per contract and remove deepseek advisory dependency; re-issue round1 advisory with corrected scope.\"\n\nLet's write the JSON."
        },
        "logprobs": null,
        "finish_reason": "stop"
      }
    ],
    "usage": {
      "prompt_tokens": 10494,
      "completion_tokens": 5578,
      "total_tokens": 16072,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 0
      },
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 5100
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 0,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 10494
    },
    "system_fingerprint": "fp_9954b31ca7_prod0820_fp8_kvcache_20260402"
  },
  "raw_response_meta": {
    "id": "9b56a6e4-87b3-456c-aba5-15981200ba6a",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "usage": {
      "prompt_tokens": 10494,
      "completion_tokens": 5578,
      "total_tokens": 16072,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 0
      },
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 5100
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 0,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 10494
    },
    "finish_reason": "stop",
    "content_chars": 2142,
    "reasoning_content_present": true,
    "reasoning_content_chars": 23641
  }
}