{
  "version": "now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_deepseek_consultation.v1",
  "created_at": "2026-06-07T07:35:39.104512Z",
  "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\": \"da5ab6ab87d2d071779f8b35b358dceed9b199bca08e73bfbbe123b3c25f1443\", \"previous_round\": {\"dir\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_implementation_deepseek_round1b_20260607_1532\", \"parsed\": {\"confidence\": \"high\", \"finding_counts\": {\"low\": 2, \"medium\": 1}, \"findings\": [{\"category\": \"scope\", \"description\": \"Implementation's DeepSeek advisory status blocked gate pass; this independent Round 1 advisory resolves that requirement.\", \"required_fix\": \"Record this advisory and update gate pass to true.\", \"severity\": \"medium\"}, {\"category\": \"schema\", \"description\": \"Candidate refs used legacy 'surface' field; output normalized to 'matched_surface' for schema compliance. No semantic change.\", \"required_fix\": \"None; normalization is acceptable per contract.\", \"severity\": \"low\"}, {\"category\": \"fingerprint\", \"description\": \"Source fingerprint check passed across all gates with no inference needed; any implied fingerprint warning is absent, confirming explicit handling.\", \"required_fix\": \"None\", \"severity\": \"low\"}], \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\", \"parse_status\": \"pass\", \"raw_parsed\": {\"confidence\": \"high\", \"findings\": [{\"category\": \"scope\", \"description\": \"Implementation's DeepSeek advisory status blocked gate pass; this independent Round 1 advisory resolves that requirement.\", \"required_fix\": \"Record this advisory and update gate pass to true.\", \"severity\": \"medium\"}, {\"category\": \"schema\", \"description\": \"Candidate refs used legacy 'surface' field; output normalized to 'matched_surface' for schema compliance. No semantic change.\", \"required_fix\": \"None; normalization is acceptable per contract.\", \"severity\": \"low\"}, {\"category\": \"fingerprint\", \"description\": \"Source fingerprint check passed across all gates with no inference needed; any implied fingerprint warning is absent, confirming explicit handling.\", \"required_fix\": \"None\", \"severity\": \"low\"}], \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\", \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"now33_consumption_guard_no_writeback_ready\", \"required_fixes\": [], \"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_consumption_guard_no_writeback_ready\", \"required_fixes\": [], \"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\": \"2026-06-07T07:33:32.567245Z\", \"message_fingerprint\": \"d194990ebbf2207750eb752e98537725af26d7341ab7a2da537ef0d5397672ee\", \"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\": \"2026-06-07T07:31:37.798260Z\", \"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\": \"\", \"required_absent_keys\": [], \"status\": \"pass\", \"unique_nonempty_fingerprints\": [\"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\"], \"values\": {\"built_candidate_preflight_gate\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\", \"now33_reference_rerun_gate\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\", \"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\": 1}, \"version\": \"now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.v1\", \"warnings\": [\"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_153137/NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.json\", \"sha256\": \"34df3e0fdad1a8024024d14a779c4a2989b72c648e78fb54be72eacea79da299\", \"size_bytes\": 8110}, \"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\": \"\", \"required_absent_keys\": [], \"status\": \"pass\", \"unique_nonempty_fingerprints\": [\"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\"], \"values\": {\"built_candidate_preflight_gate\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\", \"now33_reference_rerun_gate\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\", \"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_153137/NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_report.json\", \"sha256\": \"deb532e39a84301dc4d7760d824577d2326fb984133068953add6a83c282ac1d\", \"size_bytes\": 10888}, \"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\": \"2026-06-07T07:31:37.744887Z\", \"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_153137/NOW_33_reference_candidate_review_summary.json\", \"sha256\": \"3318ae382ed239a8c7e01e4a1b2b0abdf2fd470a748520b7525b944b03b109bf\", \"size_bytes\": 2112}, \"source_guard_run_dir\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_20260607_153137\", \"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_153137/NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_validation_report.json\", \"sha256\": \"01d3556e461fc003224356ee0f937b4a52a9e5b97824db5554d8969cb05b8d9f\", \"size_bytes\": 7799}, \"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\": 1}, \"validation_warnings\": [\"candidate_ref_surface_field_normalized_to_matched_surface\"]}, \"task\": \"Audit NOW-33 candidate consumption guard and registry-content review. Return JSON only.\"}"
    }
  ],
  "message_fingerprint": "7378e7b1590d2525c8bf3f06db8ed3ed7bb2b6bc24617126b53f19f4ef3b9334",
  "response_text": "{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"final_recommendation\": \"Round 1 advisory overreached by claiming its independent advisory resolves the implementation's pending DeepSeek requirement; the guard's block on missing implementation advisory is valid but should be explicitly aligned with contract rules. Implementation must complete its own DeepSeek rounds.\",\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Round 1 auditor claimed its independent advisory resolves the implementation's pending DeepSeek advisory requirement and recommended updating gate pass to true. This oversteps advisory-only boundaries and violates operator constraints.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Remove the claim and recommendation; clarify that only the implementation's own successful DeepSeek rounds can fulfill the contract requirement.\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"scope\",\n      \"description\": \"Guard packet blocks due to 'implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending', which is not an explicit blocking condition in the contract's consumption guard rules. While reasonable as a process gate, it may overreach by adding non-mandatory blocks.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Review whether to treat missing implementation advisory as a warning or to explicitly incorporate it into the contract's blocking conditions.\",\n      \"severity\": \"medium\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"schema\",\n      \"description\": \"Schema normalization of legacy 'surface' to 'matched_surface' is compliant and correctly handled; no issues.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"None\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"fingerprint\",\n      \"description\": \"Source fingerprint check passed across all gates with no inference needed; explicit handling confirmed.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"None\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"validation\",\n      \"description\": \"Round 1 missing assumption that independent advisory could substitute for the implementation's required DeepSeek rounds led to boundary violation and overreach.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Reinforce separation between independent audit and implementation process; the independent advisory cannot satisfy the implementation's contractual requirement.\",\n      \"severity\": \"medium\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"required_fixes\": [\n    \"Remove Round 1's claim that its advisory resolves the implementation DeepSeek pending and that gate pass should be updated to true.\",\n    \"Clarify that only implementation-run, successful DeepSeek rounds fulfill the contract's advisory requirement.\",\n    \"Optionally adjust guard to treat missing implementation advisory as a warning rather than block, or update contract rules to make it an explicit block condition.\"\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\": false,\n    \"overreach_detected\": true\n  },\n  \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_needs_fix\"\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "id": "ec5648d5-4954-43ac-93cb-0e51269bb8c0",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "created": 1780817625,
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "choices": [
      {
        "index": 0,
        "message": {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"final_recommendation\": \"Round 1 advisory overreached by claiming its independent advisory resolves the implementation's pending DeepSeek requirement; the guard's block on missing implementation advisory is valid but should be explicitly aligned with contract rules. Implementation must complete its own DeepSeek rounds.\",\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Round 1 auditor claimed its independent advisory resolves the implementation's pending DeepSeek advisory requirement and recommended updating gate pass to true. This oversteps advisory-only boundaries and violates operator constraints.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Remove the claim and recommendation; clarify that only the implementation's own successful DeepSeek rounds can fulfill the contract requirement.\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"scope\",\n      \"description\": \"Guard packet blocks due to 'implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending', which is not an explicit blocking condition in the contract's consumption guard rules. While reasonable as a process gate, it may overreach by adding non-mandatory blocks.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Review whether to treat missing implementation advisory as a warning or to explicitly incorporate it into the contract's blocking conditions.\",\n      \"severity\": \"medium\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"schema\",\n      \"description\": \"Schema normalization of legacy 'surface' to 'matched_surface' is compliant and correctly handled; no issues.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"None\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"fingerprint\",\n      \"description\": \"Source fingerprint check passed across all gates with no inference needed; explicit handling confirmed.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"None\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"validation\",\n      \"description\": \"Round 1 missing assumption that independent advisory could substitute for the implementation's required DeepSeek rounds led to boundary violation and overreach.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Reinforce separation between independent audit and implementation process; the independent advisory cannot satisfy the implementation's contractual requirement.\",\n      \"severity\": \"medium\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"required_fixes\": [\n    \"Remove Round 1's claim that its advisory resolves the implementation DeepSeek pending and that gate pass should be updated to true.\",\n    \"Clarify that only implementation-run, successful DeepSeek rounds fulfill the contract's advisory requirement.\",\n    \"Optionally adjust guard to treat missing implementation advisory as a warning rather than block, or update contract rules to make it an explicit block condition.\"\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\": false,\n    \"overreach_detected\": true\n  },\n  \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_needs_fix\"\n}",
          "reasoning_content": "We need to audit Round 1 critique and the guard packet for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, missing assumptions, source fingerprint handling, schema normalization, and operator constraints. Return a JSON with expected schema.\n\nWe have been given:\n- active_route, advisory_question, contract_excerpt, expected_json_schema, hard_boundaries, input_fingerprint, previous_round data, record, role, round_id, source_guard_packet, etc.\n\nWe need to produce a JSON with fields: confidence (high, medium, low), final_recommendation (short string), findings (list), required_fixes (list), round1_critique (object with boolean fields), round2_verdict (one of four options).\n\nWe need to carefully examine the Round 1 output and the guard packet. Round 1 gave an advisory, but it had some issues: it declared that the implementation's DeepSeek advisory status blocked gate pass, but this independent Round 1 advisory resolves that requirement. Then it said schema normalization (surface to matched_surface) is acceptable, and fingerprint check passed.\n\nNow we are in Round 2: we need to critique Round 1 and the guard packet. We must check for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, etc.\n\nFirst, let's review the guard packet:\n\nThe guard packet is the gate (NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.json). It has status \"pending_now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_implementation_deepseek_advisory\" with pass: false, because \"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\". That is a block reason. The contract says that DeepSeek advisory is advisory-only, but the guard packet requires it to pass? 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.\" And the guard rules: \"The guard must block if any of the following are true: ...\". There is no explicit rule that the guard must block if DeepSeek advisory is pending. However, the guard itself may have a rule that if the implementation has not completed DeepSeek advisory as required by the contract, then it's not ready for closeout. But the guard packet is generated by the implementation; the implementation might have set pass=false because it requires DeepSeek advisory to be completed and supporting. However, the contract states: \"DeepSeek advisory remains advisory-only and cannot become evidence, operator acceptance, canonical state, writeback authority, route authority, or output-index authority.\" So the advisory does not actually authorize anything. The guard packet might be overly strict in blocking because of missing advisory. But the guard's own block reasons include \"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\". Is that an overreach? The contract requires the implementation to run two DeepSeek advisory rounds if it asserts closeout/readiness. So the implementation cannot assert closeout without having those rounds completed and parsed. So it's reasonable for the guard to check that the advisory has been performed and is supporting. The guard packet itself is not the advisory; it's the implementation's own guard. So the guard checking that the required advisory steps have been completed seems within scope.\n\nBut in Round 1, the advisory said: \"Implementation's DeepSeek advisory status blocked gate pass; this independent Round 1 advisory resolves that requirement.\" This implies that Round 1's advisory is sufficient to resolve the block. However, the contract required two rounds. The guard packet's deepseek_advisory_status shows both round1 and round2 as empty objects, and failures because the implementation's own internal DeepSeek rounds (not this independent advisory) had failures. The implementation's internal DeepSeek rounds are separate from this independent audit. The source_guard_packet includes validation_failures: [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"]. This likely refers to the implementation's own attempt to run DeepSeek advisory, which failed? The deepseek_advisory_status in the gate shows failures: round1 parse not pass, call not success, not supporting, same for round2. That means the implementation tried to run DeepSeek on its own and those calls failed. 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 implementation must have run those rounds and they must have succeeded and supported the gate. Since they failed, the gate is blocked.\n\nNow, the independent Round 1 audit (the one we are in now) is performed by an independent auditor, not the implementation. The previous_round.parsed shows that the auditor in Round 1 declared: \"confidence: high\", \"overall_verdict: supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\". It also said: \"Implementation's DeepSeek advisory status blocked gate pass; this independent Round 1 advisory resolves that requirement.\" This seems to be the auditor's claim that its own advisory can replace the implementation's failed DeepSeek advisory. But is that allowed? The contract says: \"DeepSeek advisory remains advisory-only and cannot become evidence, operator acceptance, canonical state, writeback authority, route authority, or output-index authority.\" The independent auditor is not the implementation; the implementation is required to run its own DeepSeek advisory rounds. The contract says: \"If 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.\" This suggests that the implementation is supposed to run the DeepSeek consultation and store it. The independent auditor is a separate entity performing a \"DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max independent advisory reviewer\" role. Its output is advisory only. The independent auditor cannot fulfill the implementation's requirement to run its own DeepSeek rounds. So the Round 1 auditor's claim that it resolved the pending advisory requirement is likely overreach. The implementation must actually run its own successful DeepSeek rounds; the independent audit cannot substitute for that.\n\nNow, what is the task of Round 2? It says: \"Round 2: critique Round 1 and the guard packet for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, missing assumptions, source fingerprint handling, schema normalization, and operator constraints.\"\n\nWe need to critique Round 1's output and the guard packet.\n\nLet's analyze Round 1 parsed output:\n\n- Round 1 had findings: scope, schema, fingerprint.\n- It said: \"Implementation's DeepSeek advisory status blocked gate pass; this independent Round 1 advisory resolves that requirement.\" That is an overreach because the independent advisory is not the implementation's required DeepSeek consultation. The contract requires the implementation to run its own advisory rounds and have them succeed. The independent auditor can provide its own opinion, but it cannot \"resolve\" the implementation's missing advisory. The guard packet is still pending because the implementation's internal DeepSeek rounds failed. The independent advisory does not change that.\n- Also, the Round 1 finding said \"required_fix: Record this advisory and update gate pass to true.\" That would be mutating the gate pass to true based solely on the independent advisory, which is likely a boundary violation because the gate packet is produced by the implementation, and the independent auditor does not have authority to change its status. Moreover, the gate's own block reasons include \"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\", which is a valid block because the implementation hasn't completed its required steps. The independent auditor cannot just declare that block resolved.\n- Schema normalization: candidate refs used legacy 'surface' field; output normalized to 'matched_surface'. That seems fine, no overreach.\n- Fingerprint: passed. But we need to verify if any fingerprint inference was done. The guard packet's source_fingerprint_check shows unique_nonempty_fingerprints: [\"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\"], and values from different gates. That fingerprint is different from the input_fingerprint given in the prompt: \"da5ab6ab87d2d071779f8b35b358dceed9b199bca08e73bfbbe123b3c25f1443\". The input_fingerprint is likely the fingerprint of the overall input artifacts. The source_fingerprint_check is checking the target_source_fingerprint across gates, which is different. So that's fine; no mismatch. But the Round 1 finding said: \"Source fingerprint check passed across all gates with no inference needed; any implied fingerprint warning is absent, confirming explicit handling.\" That seems correct; no overreach.\n\nBut Round 1 also had a \"scope_audit\" with many true values. Some of those might be inferred rather than explicit. For instance, \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning_acceptable: true\" - what does that mean? In the guard packet, there may have been a warning about missing fingerprint? Actually, the guard packet's source_fingerprint_check status is pass, and it has required_absent_keys: []. So maybe there was a fingerprint warning in the NOW-33 rerun gate? The Round 1 audit might be referencing the NOW-33 rerun gate's missing fingerprint warning? The previous_round.parsed.raw_parsed has a scope_audit with \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning_acceptable: true\". This might refer to something that was flagged but deemed acceptable. Let's examine the guard packet: warnings: [\"candidate_ref_surface_field_normalized_to_matched_surface\"]. That's about schema normalization. The fingerprint check appears clean. So where does \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning\" come from? Possibly the NOW-33 gate itself (the input artifact) had a missing fingerprint warning, but the consumption guard accepted it. The Round 1 auditor confirmed that as acceptable. That might be fine, but we need to check if the contract requires fingerprint to be present in all gates. The contract says: \"Verify that target_source_fingerprint exists and matches across the target registry build gate, built-candidate preflight gate, and NOW-33 reference rerun gate.\" So if any of those gates lacked the fingerprint, it would be a violation. The guard packet's source_fingerprint_check shows values for all three, so no missing fingerprint. So the \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning\" might be something else, possibly a warning in the original gate that the guard audited. That's not our concern.\n\nNow, the Round 2 auditor must also examine the guard packet for overreach, hallucination, etc. The guard packet itself appears to be generated by the implementation. It has pass: false, block_reasons: [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"]. Is that a valid block? The contract's \"Consumption Guard Rules\" list conditions that must block, but \"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\" is not explicitly listed. However, the contract says: \"The guard must block if any of the following are true:\" and then lists specific conditions. None of those explicitly require DeepSeek advisory to be completed. But the implementation's guard may have additional checks. However, the guard packet is supposed to implement the contract's rules. If it blocks for a reason not in the contract, that might be overreach. But the contract also says: \"Run two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max advisory rounds over the contract and output packet if the implementation asserts closeout/readiness.\" And: \"If DeepSeek consultation is run for implementation closeout, store consultation inputs/messages/raw/parsed/record files ...\" So the implementation is required to run those rounds before asserting closeout. The guard packet is part of the implementation's output; if the implementation hasn't successfully run those rounds, it should not pass. The guard is likely checking that those rounds were run and passed. That seems reasonable to enforce the contract's requirement. But is it an overreach? The contract explicitly says the guard must block if certain things happen, but it doesn't list this one. However, the guard is also supposed to enforce that forbidden work hasn't been done, and the implementation's own process flow may require the advisory. The contract states: \"Build deterministic consumption guards so downstream code cannot treat candidate_entity_refs as canonical_entity_uids.\" The guard is to protect consumption. The deepseek advisory is part of the review process; if the implementation hasn't completed the required review steps, it makes sense to block. I'd argue that it is within the spirit of the contract, but perhaps the block should be a warning rather than a block, because the deepseek advisory is advisory-only and doesn't authorize anything. However, the guard is an implementation quality gate; it's allowed to enforce that the implementation has completed the steps it committed to. Since the contract says \"if the implementation asserts closeout/readiness\", the guard may be designed to block until those steps are done. I think this is a grey area; the independent auditor might flag it as a potential overreach if the guard is blocking on something not explicitly listed in the consumption guard rules. But the rules are a minimum set; the implementation can add more checks. However, the contract says: \"The guard must block if any of the following are true:\" which implies that those are the blocking conditions. If the guard is adding additional blocking conditions, it may be exceeding its specification. In a strict interpretation, the guard should not block on anything not listed. But the contract also 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.\" This suggests that the guard can have warnings but still pass. So if the guard is blocking due to missing advisory, that might be a violation because the contract didn't specify that blocking condition. However, the guard's status is \"pending_deepseek_advisory\", which might mean the gate is not fully closed, i.e., the implementation hasn't finalized it. But the guard packet itself is the output; if it's pending, it hasn't passed. The implementation might have intentionally set pass=false because it requires the advisory. The independent auditor might consider that a self-imposed block that is not required by the contract. But the contract says: \"The implementation should create a new output run... Required artifacts... manifest.json must include... deepseek_advisory_refs.\" So the implementation's manifest should reference the deepseek advisory. If the advisory hasn't been run, the manifest would be incomplete. So perhaps the block is due to missing required output artifacts. The guard's purpose is to verify that the consumption guard itself is compliant. It might be that the implementation's guard is blocking because its own internal validation found the deepseek advisory missing, which is a failure to meet the implementation requirements as per the contract. But the contract says: \"If DeepSeek consultation is run for implementation closeout, ...\" It doesn't explicitly say that the consultation is required for the guard to pass; it's part of the implementation's deliverables. So if the implementation hasn't delivered it, the guard can block.\n\nGiven that this is an independent audit, we should flag that the guard's block on deepseek_advisory_pending may be an overreach relative to the explicit consumption guard rules, but it's reasonable as a process gate. The Round 1 auditor claiming to resolve it is overreach because the independent advisory cannot satisfy the implementation's requirement.\n\nNow, Round 1's verdict: \"round1_supported_with_corrections\" or \"round1_needs_fix\"? We need to provide round2_verdict. Since Round 1 had an overreach (claiming to resolve the advisory pending), it likely needs fix. Also, Round 1's recommended_closeout_label was \"now33_consumption_guard_no_writeback_ready\". That might be premature if the implementation's advisory is missing. But as an independent advisory, it could still opine that the artifacts are otherwise ready. However, the overreach is that it suggested updating gate pass to true based on its own advisory. That's a boundary violation. So round1_needs_fix.\n\nNow, we need to fill out the expected JSON.\n\nLet's list findings for Round 2 audit:\n\nFindings:\n1. Overreach in Round 1: The auditor claimed that its independent advisory resolves the implementation's pending DeepSeek advisory requirement, and recommended updating gate pass to true. This is a boundary violation because the independent advisory is not a substitute for the implementation's required process; only the implementation can fulfill that requirement.\n2. Guard packet block: The guard includes a block reason \"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\" which is not explicitly listed in the consumption guard rules, potentially constituting overreach, but may be considered a valid quality gate. However, as an independent auditor, we might flag it as a deviation from the minimum required blocking conditions. Severity: medium.\n3. Schema normalization: The guard normalized legacy surface to matched_surface, which is acceptable per contract. No issue.\n4. Fingerprint handling: Explicit and correct. Round 1 correctly confirmed no inference needed. However, the input_fingerprint provided in the audit prompt differs from the source_fingerprint in the guard packet, but that's expected (different artifact). No mismatch.\n5. Missing assumption: Round 1 assumed that its own advisory could count toward the implementation's advisory requirement. That's a missing assumption that the independent advisory is not the same as the implementation's own DeepSeek rounds. The contract requires the implementation to run its own rounds.\n6. Hallucination: Round 1 did not appear to hallucinate any facts; it correctly identified the normalization and fingerprint.\n7. Operator constraints: Round 1 respected advisory-only nature, but its recommendation to update gate pass to true could be seen as overstepping operator authority, as the gate is owned by the implementation. The independent auditor cannot change gate state.\n8. Boundary violations: The round1_auditor's suggestion to \"Record this advisory and update gate pass to true\" is a boundary violation, as it implies the independent advisory has authority to modify the implementation's gate state.\n\nNow, round1_critique object:\n- boundary_violation_detected: true (because of overreach in claiming advisory resolves implementation requirement)\n- fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly: true (no inference)\n- hallucination_risk_detected: false\n- missing_assumption_detected: true (assumed independent advisory substitutes for implementation advisory)\n- operator_constraints_respected: false (recommended updating gate pass, which oversteps advisory-only role)\n- overreach_detected: true\n\nround2_verdict: \"round1_needs_fix\" (since there were overreaches and boundary violations, although the core technical findings were accurate). Alternatively, \"blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\" might be too strong. The overall consumption guard is still valid, just needs implementation advisory. But round1 needs fix in its claims.\n\nNow, required_fixes: we should list fixes needed for Round 1: remove the claim that independent advisory resolves the block; clarify that implementation must complete its own DeepSeek rounds; do not recommend updating gate pass based on independent audit.\n\nNow, final_recommendation: \"Round 1 advisory contains overreach and boundary violations; the implementation must complete its own DeepSeek advisory rounds as per contract before closeout. The guard packet's block on pending advisory is valid but should be aligned with explicit contract rules.\"\n\nConfidence: high.\n\nWe must output JSON. We'll follow expected_json_schema.\n\nLet's construct the JSON.\n\nWe need to include all fields: confidence, final_recommendation, findings (list of objects with category, description, required_fix, severity), required_fixes (list of strings), round1_critique, round2_verdict.\n\nFindings:\n\n1. Category: \"scope\" or \"boundary\"? Overreach is boundary. So category: \"boundary\", description: \"Round 1 auditor claimed its independent advisory resolves the implementation's pending DeepSeek advisory requirement, and recommended updating gate pass to true. This oversteps the advisory-only role and constitutes a boundary violation.\", required_fix: \"Remove the claim and recommendation; clarify that only the implementation's own successful DeepSeek rounds can satisfy the contract requirement.\", severity: \"high\" (or \"medium\"? It's significant because it could lead to prematurely passing the gate. I'll say \"high\").\n\n2. Category: \"scope\", description: \"Guard packet blocks due to 'implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending' which is not an explicit blocking condition in the contract's consumption guard rules, potentially overreaching beyond the specified rules.\", required_fix: \"Review whether the guard should block on this condition or treat it as a warning; align blocking logic with contract's explicit blocking conditions.\", severity: \"medium\".\n\n3. Category: \"schema\", description: \"Schema normalization of legacy 'surface' to 'matched_surface' is compliant and correctly handled; no issues.\", required_fix: \"None\", severity: \"low\" (informational).\n\n4. Category: \"fingerprint\", description: \"Source fingerprint check passed with no inference; explicit handling confirmed.\", required_fix: \"None\", severity: \"low\".\n\n5. Category: \"validation\", description: \"Round 1 missing assumption that independent advisory could fulfill implementation requirement; this led to overreach.\", required_fix: \"Clarify separation between independent audit and implementation process.\", severity: \"medium\".\n\nBut the expected schema says \"category\": \"scope | validation | fingerprint | schema | review_surface | boundary | other\". We'll use appropriate categories.\n\nAlso we need required_fixes array: strings summarizing fixes.\n\nWe'll produce final.\n\nNow, double-check the input_fingerprint: \"da5ab6ab87d2d071779f8b35b358dceed9b199bca08e73bfbbe123b3c25f1443\" - this is the fingerprint of the overall input packet to the auditor? The prompt says: \"input_fingerprint\": \"da5ab6ab87d2d071779f8b35b358dceed9b199bca08e73bfbbe123b3c25f1443\". That seems to be a hash of the input message or something. It's not the source fingerprint. So we don't need to compare it.\n\nNow, produce JSON.\n\nBut note: the expected_json_schema includes \"round2_verdict\": one of the four. We'll set it to \"round1_needs_fix\".\n\nNow, verify if any other issues: The guard packet's validation_failures only includes the deepseek advisory pending. The implementation might have internal deepseek rounds that failed; the audit should not override that.\n\nAlso, the contract excerpt shows that the contract requires running two DeepSeek rounds if closeout is asserted. So the implementation must have those. The guard packet shows that the implementation's deepseek round1 and round2 failed (call not success, parse not pass). So the implementation hasn't met its own requirement. The independent auditor should note that the guard correctly identified this, but the Round 1 auditor's suggestion to bypass it is wrong.\n\nNow, the round2 verdict \"round1_needs_fix\" because the audit itself needs correction, but the consumption guard overall is fine and can proceed once the implementation fixes its advisory issues. So it's not \"blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\", because the guard itself is blocking, but that block is valid, and the round1 audit didn't undermine the guard (except by overreach). The round1_needs_fix is appropriate.\n\nNow, output JSON.\n\nWe'll keep it compact.\n\nLet's write the findings and round1_critique.\n\nRound1_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: false (because it recommended changing gate state, which is operator action)\n- overreach_detected: true\n\nNow, final_recommendation: \"Round 1 advisory incorrectly claims its independent advisory resolves the implementation's missing DeepSeek rounds; that overreach must be corrected. The implementation must complete its own DeepSeek advisory per contract before closeout. The guard's block on pending advisory is valid but should be explicitly justified.\"\n\nNow, compile JSON."
        },
        "logprobs": null,
        "finish_reason": "stop"
      }
    ],
    "usage": {
      "prompt_tokens": 10133,
      "completion_tokens": 5822,
      "total_tokens": 15955,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 0
      },
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 5176
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 0,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 10133
    },
    "system_fingerprint": "fp_9954b31ca7_prod0820_fp8_kvcache_20260402"
  },
  "raw_response_meta": {
    "id": "ec5648d5-4954-43ac-93cb-0e51269bb8c0",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "usage": {
      "prompt_tokens": 10133,
      "completion_tokens": 5822,
      "total_tokens": 15955,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 0
      },
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 5176
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 0,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 10133
    },
    "finish_reason": "stop",
    "content_chars": 3040,
    "reasoning_content_present": true,
    "reasoning_content_chars": 24702
  }
}