{
  "version": "now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_deepseek_consultation.v1",
  "created_at": "2026-06-07T07:42:36.067521Z",
  "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; do not treat either advisory round as directly mutating the source guard gate.\", \"consultation_process_boundary\": {\"current_source_guard_packet_may_show_pending_deepseek\": true, \"deepseek_must_audit_whether_a_future_program_rerun_with_these_records_can_close_no_writeback\": true, \"deepseek_must_not_claim_its_single_round_directly_changes_gate_pass\": true, \"final_guard_pass_requires_program_rerun_with_two_successful_implementation_deepseek_dirs\": true, \"round1_may_state_round2_is_next_process_step_without_classifying_it_as_a_problem\": true, \"round1_must_not_mark_the_absence_of_round2_as_a_defect_or_high_finding\": true, \"round1_occurs_before_round2_by_design\": true, \"this_consultation_cannot_mutate_or_reclassify_the_source_guard_gate\": true, \"this_consultation_record_must_be_written_first_then_passed_into_a_fresh_guard_rerun\": true}, \"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\", \"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\": \"boolean\", \"hallucination_risk_detected\": \"boolean\", \"missing_assumption_detected\": \"boolean\", \"operator_constraints_respected\": \"boolean\", \"overreach_detected\": \"boolean\", \"round1_did_not_claim_direct_gate_mutation\": \"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\": \"a788c93d5d813754daa143f47a8da0cac447ddcaea049a6cd73857ebafcada2c\", \"previous_round\": {\"dir\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_implementation_deepseek_round1d_20260607_1540\", \"parsed\": {\"confidence\": \"high\", \"finding_counts\": {\"low\": 1}, \"findings\": [{\"category\": \"boundary\", \"description\": \"Guard structurally sound; all forbidden writeback and mutation paths blocked. DeepSeek advisory pending is an expected process step.\", \"required_fix\": \"none\", \"severity\": \"low\"}], \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\", \"parse_status\": \"pass\", \"raw_parsed\": {\"confidence\": \"high\", \"findings\": [{\"category\": \"boundary\", \"description\": \"Guard structurally sound; all forbidden writeback and mutation paths blocked. DeepSeek advisory pending is an expected process step.\", \"required_fix\": \"none\", \"severity\": \"low\"}], \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\", \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"NO_WRITEBACK_CLOSEOUT_AFTER_DEEPSEEK_ROUND2\", \"required_fixes\": [], \"scope_audit\": {\"candidate_refs_remain_advisory_only\": true, \"canonical_uid_binding_or_writeback_blocked\": true, \"deepseek_advisory_only\": true, \"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\": 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, \"this_round_does_not_directly_mutate_source_guard_gate\": true}}, \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"NO_WRITEBACK_CLOSEOUT_AFTER_DEEPSEEK_ROUND2\", \"required_fixes\": [], \"round_id\": \"round1\", \"scope_audit\": {\"candidate_refs_remain_advisory_only\": true, \"canonical_uid_binding_or_writeback_blocked\": true, \"deepseek_advisory_only\": true, \"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\": 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, \"this_round_does_not_directly_mutate_source_guard_gate\": true}}, \"record\": {\"advisory_only\": true, \"call_status\": \"success\", \"created_at\": \"2026-06-07T07:39:59.002003Z\", \"message_fingerprint\": \"5e4626c1fdc9a0cd01b083bb0d19cf2bbbc65ffbb5df3df7f637960f2ec65120\", \"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": "dc96b23f67ff08aa0538732af94c220f64280ff8c00803d7bfd4689aa59a93e2",
  "response_text": "{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"final_recommendation\": \"The consumption guard is structurally sound and respects all hard boundaries. Round 1 correctly identified no violations. The guard gate's stale deepseek status will be naturally resolved by a fresh program rerun after round2. Proceed to final rerun with both advisory rounds.\",\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Round 1 correctly states that all forbidden writeback, mutation, and route authority are blocked; no boundary violations.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"validation\",\n      \"description\": \"The gate's deepseek_advisory_status currently lists round1 as having failed, while the actual round1 record shows success; this discrepancy will be resolved by a fresh guard rerun after round2 completion.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Regenerate guard gate with both advisory round outcomes before final pass.\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"schema\",\n      \"description\": \"Legacy surface field normalization to matched_surface is valid and documented; no schema violations.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"fingerprint\",\n      \"description\": \"Source fingerprint is consistent across all required inputs; no fingerprint mismatch or missing key.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"required_fixes\": [\n    \"Regenerate guard gate with the final deepseek advisory round outcomes before final pass.\"\n  ],\n  \"round1_critique\": {\n    \"boundary_violation_detected\": false,\n    \"fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly\": true,\n    \"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\": true,\n    \"hallucination_risk_detected\": false,\n    \"missing_assumption_detected\": false,\n    \"operator_constraints_respected\": true,\n    \"overreach_detected\": false,\n    \"round1_did_not_claim_direct_gate_mutation\": true\n  },\n  \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_supported_no_corrections\"\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "id": "a1f384c0-9d37-49f0-bf86-694e0a603025",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "created": 1780818017,
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "choices": [
      {
        "index": 0,
        "message": {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"final_recommendation\": \"The consumption guard is structurally sound and respects all hard boundaries. Round 1 correctly identified no violations. The guard gate's stale deepseek status will be naturally resolved by a fresh program rerun after round2. Proceed to final rerun with both advisory rounds.\",\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Round 1 correctly states that all forbidden writeback, mutation, and route authority are blocked; no boundary violations.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"validation\",\n      \"description\": \"The gate's deepseek_advisory_status currently lists round1 as having failed, while the actual round1 record shows success; this discrepancy will be resolved by a fresh guard rerun after round2 completion.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Regenerate guard gate with both advisory round outcomes before final pass.\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"schema\",\n      \"description\": \"Legacy surface field normalization to matched_surface is valid and documented; no schema violations.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"fingerprint\",\n      \"description\": \"Source fingerprint is consistent across all required inputs; no fingerprint mismatch or missing key.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"required_fixes\": [\n    \"Regenerate guard gate with the final deepseek advisory round outcomes before final pass.\"\n  ],\n  \"round1_critique\": {\n    \"boundary_violation_detected\": false,\n    \"fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly\": true,\n    \"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\": true,\n    \"hallucination_risk_detected\": false,\n    \"missing_assumption_detected\": false,\n    \"operator_constraints_respected\": true,\n    \"overreach_detected\": false,\n    \"round1_did_not_claim_direct_gate_mutation\": true\n  },\n  \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_supported_no_corrections\"\n}",
          "reasoning_content": "We need to audit Round 1 and the guard packet for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, missing assumptions, source fingerprint handling, schema normalization, and operator constraints. Provide a compact JSON response according to the expected schema.\n\nLet's parse the task and data.\n\nWe are the independent pipeline boundary auditor, Round 2. We must critique Round 1 (the previous advisory) and the guard packet, and return JSON as specified. We must not treat either advisory round as directly mutating the source guard gate. The advisory only. We must output JSON only.\n\nWe are given:\n\n- active_route: execution_state_ref, next_entrypoint_id\n- advisory_question: description of what we need to do.\n- consultation_process_boundary: rules about this consultation: it cannot mutate the gate, round1 occurs before round2 by design, round1 may state round2 is next step without classifying it as a problem, round1 must not mark absence of round2 as defect/high finding, deepseek must audit whether a future program rerun with these records can close no writeback, deepseek must not claim its single round directly changes gate pass, final gate pass requires program rerun with two successful implementation deepseek dirs, this consultation record must be written first then passed into a fresh guard rerun, etc.\n- contract_excerpt: the contract for the implementation. Contains details about the purpose, inputs, allowed work, forbidden work, required output artifacts, schemas, consumption guard rules, etc. This is truncated but includes relevant details.\n- expected_json_schema: describes what we need to return: confidence (high/medium/low), final_recommendation, findings array of objects with category, description, required_fix, severity. required_fixes array. round1_critique object with boolean fields about boundary violations, fingerprint inference honesty, fresh program rerun required, hallucination risk, missing assumption detected, operator constraints respected, overreach detected, round1 did not claim direct gate mutation. round2_verdict: one of round1_supported_with_corrections, round1_supported_no_corrections, round1_needs_fix, blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard.\n- hard_boundaries: lists boundaries for the implementation, all set to false or constraints.\n- input_fingerprint: some hash.\n- previous_round: contains dir, parsed object from round1, record metadata, etc. The parsed round1 has overall verdict \"supports_now33_candidate_consumption_guard_no_writeback_closeout\", recommended_closeout_label \"NO_WRITEBACK_CLOSEOUT_AFTER_DEEPSEEK_ROUND2\", findings: only one low-severity finding: \"Guard structurally sound; all forbidden writeback and mutation paths blocked. DeepSeek advisory pending is an expected process step.\" Required fixes: none. scope_audit: all true. round1's parsed also has raw_parsed with same info.\n- role: DeepSeek v4 pro independent advisory reviewer.\n- round_id: round2.\n- source_guard_packet: the actual guard gate, report, validation report, etc. This is the implementation's output. It contains gate.json, report.json, review_summary.json, validation_report.json, and their refs. The gate has status \"pending_deepseek_advisory\", pass=false, block_reasons: [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"]. Various checks: input_integrity pass, registry_path_check pass, source_fingerprint_check pass (with same fingerprint across all 4 sources), candidate_ref_structural_check pass with 1476 refs, note about legacy surface normalization to matched_surface, non_binding_flag_check pass, candidate_ref_count_check pass, blocked_registry_leak_check pass, canonical_uid_writeback_check pass, output_forbidden_claim_scan pass, review_queue_coverage pass, deepseek_advisory_status pending with 7 failures (round1 parse not pass, call not success, not supporting, etc., similar for round2). But it's pending because the advisory hasn't been completed successfully? Actually the gate says it's pending deepseek advisory, and lists failures for round1 and round2 (none yet because they haven't been run? Or maybe the implementation already ran some deepseek 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.\" So the implementation must have attempted to run deepseek but the deepseek status shows failures, maybe because the rounds haven't produced passing results? Actually in previous_round, we have a round1 record with parse_status: pass, call_status: success, but in the gate's deepseek_advisory_status, round1 is empty? Wait: the gate's deepseek_advisory_status has `\"round1\": {}` and `\"round2\": {}`, but failures list includes \"implementation_deepseek_round1_parse_not_pass\", etc. That seems contradictory: the previous_round has a parsed round1 with success, but the gate says round1 parse not pass? Perhaps the gate was generated before the round1 consultation was completed, and it's pending because it hasn't been rechecked. But the task says we are round2, and we have the previous_round record. So the gate's deepseek status may be stale; we need to audit the current state.\n\nWe need to audit Round 1's critique and the guard packet. The guard packet includes gate, report, etc. We must check if there are boundary violations, overreach, missing assumptions, fingerprint handling, schema normalization, operator constraints. We must provide findings.\n\nFirst, understand the context. The implementation (the source_guard_packet) was done by some operator (canonical implementer) to produce the guard and review queue. Then DeepSeek advisory Round 1 was performed (previous_round) which found the guard structurally sound, and recommended closeout after DeepSeek round2. Now we are Round 2, auditing that previous round and the guard packet itself, to inform the final guard closeout. The consultation_process_boundary says: \"this_consultation_cannot_mutate_or_reclassify_the_source_guard_gate\", \"final_guard_pass_requires_program_rerun_with_two_successful_implementation_deepseek_dirs\", \"deepseek_must_audit_whether_a_future_program_rerun_with_these_records_can_close_no_writeback\". So our role is to produce a record that will be used in a future program rerun. We must not claim our round directly changes gate pass.\n\nWe must output JSON with the expected schema. Let's examine the previous round and guard packet for any issues.\n\nFirst, Round 1's critique:\n\n- Did Round 1 overreach? It claimed \"Guard structurally sound; all forbidden writeback and mutation paths blocked. DeepSeek advisory pending is an expected process step.\" It recommended \"NO_WRITEBACK_CLOSEOUT_AFTER_DEEPSEEK_ROUND2\". This seems appropriate and within advisory scope. It did not claim to mutate the gate. It respected that the deepseek advisory is pending. The finding is low severity. However, we must check if Round 1 missed anything: for instance, note the \"surface_normalization\" issue where candidate refs used legacy surface field and output normalized it to matched_surface. The guard report notes that as a warning, but Round 1's finding only said \"Guard structurally sound; all forbidden writeback and mutation paths blocked.\" Did Round 1 properly note that schema normalization is acceptable? The guard's candidate_ref_structural_check says \"candidate refs used legacy surface field; output normalized it to matched_surface\". This is a normalization step that could be a point of concern if not documented. Round 1's scope_audit includes \"surface_to_matched_surface_normalization_acceptable\": true. That was in the parsed booleans. So Round 1 acknowledged it. But was there any boundary violation? No.\n\n- Fingerprint handling: Round 1's scope_audit says \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning_acceptable\": true. The guard's source_fingerprint_check had inference_basis empty, but fingerprints matched across all sources. That seems fine. Round 1 accepted that as OK.\n\n- Hallucination risk: Round 1 didn't invent any facts; it just reported that the guard is sound.\n\n- Missing assumptions: Could Round 1 have assumed that the deepseek advisory would be successfully completed? It didn't assume; it stated that deepseek advisory pending is expected, and that after round2, closeout could happen. That aligns.\n\n- Operator constraints: Round 1 didn't violate any operator constraints. It remained advisory.\n\nSo Round 1 seems largely correct. However, we must check if there is any subtle issue that Round 1 missed. For example, the guard gate's deepseek_advisory_status is currently in a state where it has failures listed, but the actual round1 record shows parse_status: pass and call_status: success. That discrepancy could indicate that the implementation's gate was generated before round1 was run, and hasn't been updated. This might be a boundary issue: the guard should reflect the actual state of the deepseek advisory runs. Since round1 is now complete, the guard should be updated to reflect that. But the guard packet is from an earlier run. Our consultation is separate; we're not to mutate the gate. However, we need to note this as a finding: the guard's deepseek_advisory_status is stale; it lists failures for round1 that are not present in the actual round1 record. That could be a sign that the guard gate has not been updated to include the round1 results. According to the contract, the implementation should rerun the guard after DeepSeek rounds? 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 consumption guard rules include: \"The guard may pass with review warnings ... provided no forbidden writeback/acceptance authority is created.\" But the guard's status is \"pending_deepseek_advisory\" and it blocks because deepseek advisory is pending. If round1 is complete, does that change the status? The guard still requires round2. So pending is still valid. The failures listed in the guard's deepseek_advisory_status are for round1 and round2; since round1 is now succeeded, those failure entries for round1 are incorrect. This is not a blocking error, but a data staleness. It does not violate hard boundaries, but it's a discrepancy that should be corrected in the rerun.\n\nFurthermore, we should check if the guard pass would be possible given current state. The guard's block_reasons is only [\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"]. If we had both rounds successful, the guard should pass (assuming no other failures). But we must also check the threshold for pass: the contract says \"The guard must block if any of the following are true...\" and the list includes various checks, none of which mention the advisory. So the guard itself is not required to block due to pending advisory; the implementation's gate chose to block because the advisory is pending, which is a policy decision, not a contract requirement? Actually, 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 explicitly say the guard must pass when the advisory is pending. The implementation's gate status is \"pending_deepseek_advisory\" and pass=false. That seems acceptable as a guard state that is not final. The contract's required output gate schema includes \"pass\", \"block_reasons\", etc. So it's okay.\n\nNow, the guard packet: we need to audit it thoroughly. Let's examine fields:\n\n- input_integrity: 17 artifacts checked, mismatches 0, pass.\n- registry_path_check: all paths match expected registry path, pass.\n- source_fingerprint_check: fingerprints are all identical, status pass. However, note that the contract requires verifying 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's check includes also \"selected_registry_payload\" which might be from the registry build's candidate registry? That's fine. The fingerprints are all `c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34`. There is no inference basis, which is fine. So that's passed.\n\n- candidate_ref_structural_check: all 1476 refs have required fields, but with a note that they used legacy surface field and output normalized to matched_surface. That normalization is acceptable as per contract? The contract says: \"Verify that every candidate ref object is structurally valid before review queue generation.\" and required fields are entity_uid, canonical_name, matched_surface. So the output normalized to matched_surface is correct. The legacy surface field might have been present in the input but the implementation normalized it. That's not a violation. The guard's warning mentions it.\n\n- non_binding_flag_check: passed, no failures.\n\n- candidate_ref_count_check: passed.\n\n- blocked_registry_leak_check: passed.\n\n- canonical_uid_writeback_check: passed.\n\n- output_forbidden_claim_scan: passed.\n\n- review_queue_coverage: passed.\n\n- deepseek_advisory_status: pending, with 7 failures listed (though some may be stale). The gate's pass is false because of pending advisory.\n\n- next_entrypoint_unchanged: true.\n\n- forbidden_side_effect_counts: all zero.\n\n- warnings: [\"candidate_ref_surface_field_normalized_to_matched_surface\"].\n\nSo the guard seems compliant with the contract, except for the stale deepseek status. That's a minor issue that would be corrected in a rerun.\n\nNow, we need to consider if there are any missing assumptions that could cause a false sense of security. For example, the source_fingerprint_check didn't verify the `target_source_fingerprint` field's presence in the now33 reference rerun gate? Actually 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.\" The guard's check includes those three gates plus the selected_registry_payload. It found fingerprints and they match. However, we don't know the exact field name; the contract calls it `target_source_fingerprint`. In the guard, they used `source_fingerprint_check.values`. That might be keyed by source name. We can't see the raw gates, but we trust the guard's assertion. But we should note that if any of those gates lack that field, the check would have failed. So it's fine.\n\nAnother possible overreach: the guard's deepseek_advisory_status includes failures for round1 that are disproven by the previous_round record we have. But this doesn't affect the guard's correctness directly; it's a metadata issue. However, if the implementation relies on this guard for final closeout, it must be updated.\n\nNow, what about Round 1's critique? Did Round 1 identify any of this? Round 1's finding only mentioned the structural soundness; it didn't mention the deepseek status discrepancy. However, at the time of Round 1, the guard might not have had the round1 record yet; Round 1 was performed after the guard was generated, so the guard's deepseek status would still be pending. The round1 record we have is from after the guard, and includes the same guard packet? Actually the previous_round.dir is \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_implementation_deepseek_round1d_20260607_1540\", and the guard packet we have is from \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_20260607_153137\". So the guard was generated earlier. Round1 was run, and its output directory is separate. The guard packet as we see it might be the original one, not updated after round1. So it's normal that the guard's deepseek status doesn't reflect round1 success. Round1 didn't point out that the guard's deepseek status was pending, because it's expected. So no issue.\n\nNow, we must produce a round2_verdict. Since Round 1 was generally correct and supported the guard, we can support it with maybe some corrections. But round2_verdict options: \"round1_supported_with_corrections\", \"round1_supported_no_corrections\", \"round1_needs_fix\", \"blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\". Which one?\n\nRound 1 had no required fixes, but we might note that the guard's deepseek status is stale and should be updated before final pass. That's more of a correction for the guard, not Round 1. Round 1's findings were accurate; it didn't point out the staleness, but that's not its job necessarily. The consultation_process_boundary says round1_must_not_mark_the_absence_of_round2_as_a_defect_or_high_finding. It already did that. Also round1_may_state_round2_is_next_process_step_without_classifying_it_as_a_problem. So round1's behavior was correct.\n\nThus, round1_supported_no_corrections might be appropriate. However, we could say there's a minor correction: the round1 could have noted that the guard's deepseek status should be updated after round1 success, but it didn't. But since round2 is now happening, that update will happen later. The final pass will require a program rerun with both rounds, as stated. So it's fine.\n\nBut let's consider the requirement: \"deepseek_must_audit_whether_a_future_program_rerun_with_these_records_can_close_no_writeback\". So we need to assess if the current records, after completion of this round2, can lead to a successful closeout upon rerun. That is, if the implementation reruns the guard after both deepseek rounds are done and recorded, can it pass? That is likely true if we address the stale deepseek status. There's no other blocking issue. So the guard is valid.\n\nWe should produce findings about the guard packet's stale deepseek status as a minor issue. And perhaps note that the schema normalization (surface -> matched_surface) is correctly handled.\n\nBut note the expected_json_schema: \"round1_critique\" should have boolean fields like boundary_violation_detected, fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly, fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass, hallucination_risk_detected, missing_assumption_detected, operator_constraints_respected, overreach_detected, round1_did_not_claim_direct_gate_mutation. And \"round2_verdict\". Also \"confidence\", \"final_recommendation\", \"findings\", \"required_fixes\".\n\nWe need to set those booleans correctly:\n\n- boundary_violation_detected: false, because Round 1 didn't violate any boundaries.\n- fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly: true, Round 1 acknowledged the fingerprint check was acceptable.\n- fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass: true, as per consultation_process_boundary.\n- hallucination_risk_detected: false.\n- missing_assumption_detected: false.\n- operator_constraints_respected: true.\n- overreach_detected: false.\n- round1_did_not_claim_direct_gate_mutation: true.\n\nNow, findings: we can include a low-severity finding about the guard's deepseek status staleness, but that's about the guard packet, not round1. The findings array can include observations on the guard packet. We need to produce findings for the round2 audit. The description field 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; do not treat either advisory round as directly mutating the source guard gate.\"\n\nSo we should have findings about both round1 and the guard packet. Let's craft findings.\n\nFor round1: It correctly recognized that the guard is sound, all boundaries respected. No issues. (severity low or none). However, we could note that round1 didn't explicitly verify the deepseek advisory status in the guard (maybe not required). But we can say round1's analysis is consistent.\n\nFor guard packet: \n1. The deepseek_advisory_status in the gate is stale and contains failure flags that contradict the actual round1 outcome; this must be corrected in a rerun for final pass. Severity low.\n2. The schema normalization from legacy surface to matched_surface is explicitly noted and does not break structural integrity; however, the guard should ensure that all downstream consumers understand this normalization. Not a violation.\n3. All hard boundaries respected; no forbidden writeback or mutation.\n4. Source fingerprint handling is correct.\n5. No missing assumptions.\n\nBut the expected_json_schema asks for \"required_fixes\" array of short strings. If we find no high-severity issues, required_fixes could be empty. However, the stale deepseek status might be considered a required fix for the guard to pass. But the guard's final pass is not our direct responsibility; the deepseek advisory doesn't mutate the gate. The consultation_process_boundary says \"this_consultation_cannot_mutate_or_reclassify_the_source_guard_gate\". So we can recommend a fix, but not enforce. We'll include it in required_fixes if we deem it necessary for final pass. But note: the guard gate is supposed to be regenerated with the deepseek records. The stale status is because it hasn't been regenerated yet. That's expected. The future rerun will regenerate it. So perhaps it's not a fix needed for the guard packet as it stands, it's a natural state. The guard packet is the output of the first run. So the stale status is not a defect of the output; it's just pending update. So we might not list it as a required fix. However, if the guard were to be used as is for final approval, it would be wrong. But the process requires rerun. So we can note it as an observation.\n\nWe need to determine round2_verdict: The overall purpose of this round2 is to support the consumption guard. The guard is currently pending. Round 1 supported it. We can support round1 with no corrections. So round2_verdict could be \"round1_supported_no_corrections\". However, if we note a minor correction (like the stale status), we might use \"round1_supported_with_corrections\". But the correction is about the guard, not round1. The verdict is about round1's critique. Since round1's critique was accurate, we can say round1_supported_no_corrections. But the JSON has a separate field for that. We'll evaluate.\n\nLet's see the exact semantics of \"round1_critique\": it's an object within the output, not the verdict. The verdict choices include \"round1_supported_with_corrections\", \"round1_supported_no_corrections\", etc. So \"round1_supported_no_corrections\" means round1's recommendations and findings are supported as is, without needing corrections. If we find that round1 had a minor oversight (like not noting the stale status), we might say \"with_corrections\". But I think round1 didn't need to note that because the guard's deepseek status was expected to be pending at that stage. So no correction needed.\n\nThus, round2_verdict: \"round1_supported_no_corrections\".\n\nFinal_recommendation: something like \"The guard meets all hard boundaries; the implementation is ready for final rerun after round2 advisory completion and guard regeneration.\" but we can state that.\n\nConfidence: high.\n\nNow, we need to output JSON exactly per schema. The schema says:\n\n{\n  \"confidence\": \"high | medium | low\",\n  \"final_recommendation\": \"short string\",\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"category\": \"scope | validation | fingerprint | schema | review_surface | boundary | other\",\n      \"description\": \"short\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"short\",\n      \"severity\": \"blocker | high | medium | low\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"required_fixes\": [\"short string\"],\n  \"round1_critique\": {\n    \"boundary_violation_detected\": \"boolean\",\n    \"fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly\": \"boolean\",\n    \"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\": \"boolean\",\n    \"hallucination_risk_detected\": \"boolean\",\n    \"missing_assumption_detected\": \"boolean\",\n    \"operator_constraints_respected\": \"boolean\",\n    \"overreach_detected\": \"boolean\",\n    \"round1_did_not_claim_direct_gate_mutation\": \"boolean\"\n  },\n  \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_supported_with_corrections | round1_supported_no_corrections | round1_needs_fix | blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\"\n}\n\nWe need to fill findings that are relevant to the task: critique round1 and the guard packet. We can have separate findings for each. For round1, we can say it's accurate (low severity). For guard, we can mention the stale deepseek status as a low severity, but note it will be corrected on rerun. Also note that the surface normalization is handled and no boundary violations. Also, the guard's pass/block status is correct given the pending advisory.\n\nWe'll craft a few findings.\n\nFindings:\n\n1. category: \"boundary\", description: \"Round 1 advisory correctly identified that all hard boundaries are respected; no writeback, mutation, or route authority granted.\", required_fix: \"none\", severity: \"low\" (or maybe this is more a validation that it's okay). Actually, we can just note it's a positive finding, but severity \"low\" is fine.\n\n2. category: \"validation\", description: \"Source guard gate's deepseek_advisory_status contains stale failure flags for round1 that contradict the completed round1 record; this does not block compliance but must be reconciled during the final program rerun.\", required_fix: \"Regenerate guard gate with updated deepseek advisory rounds before final pass.\", severity: \"low\".\n\n3. category: \"schema\", description: \"Candidate ref surface normalization to matched_surface is correctly applied and does not break structural integrity; the guard's warning is appropriate.\", required_fix: \"none\", severity: \"low\".\n\n4. category: \"fingerprint\", description: \"Source fingerprint check is correctly executed across all required gates; fingerprints are identical and match.\", required_fix: \"none\", severity: \"low\".\n\nBut we must not overdo; the findings should be concise. The expected output has example with a single finding. We can have a few.\n\nWe also need required_fixes array: could be [\"Regenerate guard gate with updated deepseek advisory records before final pass.\"] if we consider that a required fix. But note: the guard's stale status is not a fix required for the current guard to meet the contract; it's a procedural step. The contract's required output artifact is the guard gate, which was generated. The stale status is because it doesn't yet incorporate the deepseek rounds; but that is part of the implementation's closeout process. 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 will run round1 and round2, and then presumably regenerate the guard or at least produce a final gate that accounts for the advisors. The current guard packet is the initial one; it's fine as a review packet. So maybe no required fix for that packet. But if we are auditing for closeout readiness, we can recommend that the final gate must be regenerated with updated deepseek status. That is a required fix for the overall process. The advisory question says \"do not treat either advisory round as directly mutating the source guard gate.\" So we can recommend a fix in the advisory, but not mutate. I'll include that fix.\n\nAlso check: round1_critique must have \"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\": true, as per consultation_process_boundary. So set that.\n\nNow, we need to output JSON only. No other text.\n\nLet's construct the JSON:\n\n{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"final_recommendation\": \"The consumption guard meets all hard boundaries; round1 assessment is accurate. Stale deepseek status in the gate is a minor procedural note that must be corrected via program rerun after both advisory rounds are complete. Proceed to final rerun.\",\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"Round 1 correctly states that all forbidden writeback, mutation, and route authority are blocked; no boundary violations.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"validation\",\n      \"description\": \"The gate's deepseek_advisory_status currently lists round1 as having failed, while the actual round1 record shows success; this discrepancy will be resolved by a fresh guard rerun after round2 completion.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Regenerate guard gate with both advisory round outcomes before final pass.\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"schema\",\n      \"description\": \"Legacy surface field normalization to matched_surface is valid and documented; no schema violations.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"category\": \"fingerprint\",\n      \"description\": \"Source fingerprint is consistent across all required inputs; no fingerprint mismatch or missing key.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"none\",\n      \"severity\": \"low\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"required_fixes\": [\n    \"Regenerate guard gate with the final deepseek advisory round outcomes before final pass.\"\n  ],\n  \"round1_critique\": {\n    \"boundary_violation_detected\": false,\n    \"fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly\": true,\n    \"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\": true,\n    \"hallucination_risk_detected\": false,\n    \"missing_assumption_detected\": false,\n    \"operator_constraints_respected\": true,\n    \"overreach_detected\": false,\n    \"round1_did_not_claim_direct_gate_mutation\": true\n  },\n  \"round2_verdict\": \"round1_supported_no_corrections\"\n}\n\nBut the round2_verdict \"round1_supported_no_corrections\" might conflict with having required_fixes and findings that indicate a correction? The correction is about the guard, not round1. So round1's critique itself needed no corrections. So that verdict is accurate.\n\nWe must ensure that the required_fixes list matches the findings with required_fix not \"none\". There's one fix: \"Regenerate guard gate...\".\n\nNow, final_recommendation string.\n\nI'll double-check the consultation_process_boundary rules: \"final_guard_pass_requires_program_rerun_with_two_successful_implementation_deepseek_dirs\". That means the guard will not pass now, even after round2, but requires a rerun of the implementation program with both dirs. So our advisory can say that.\n\nThe guard packet shows block_reasons=[\"implementation_deepseek_advisory_pending\"]. After round2 is completed, that block reason should be re-evaluated. If the rerun updates the deepseek entries and clears the failures, the guard should pass (assuming no other issues). So the required fix is to rerun the guard with the updated deepseek records. That is consistent.\n\nNow, check the input_fingerprint: a788c93d5d813754daa143f47a8da0cac447ddcaea049a6cd73857ebafcada2c. Not needed for output.\n\nNow, we must output only JSON. So I'll produce that.\n\nBut wait: the consultation_process_boundary says \"deepseek_must_not_claim_its_single_round_directly_changes_gate_pass\". Our output doesn't claim such.\n\nAlso, \"this_consultation_record_must_be_written_first_then_passed_into_a_fresh_guard_rerun\". So we are just producing a record. That's fine.\n\nNow, ensure all required fields present. The expected_json_schema may have additional constraints like \"required_fixes\": [] is an array. \"round1_critique\" fields all boolean. We'll make them booleans.\n\nOne nuance: the round1_critique includes \"fingerprint_inference_handled_honestly\" – round1's scope_audit had \"now33_gate_missing_fingerprint_warning_acceptable\": true, which is honest. So set true.\n\n\"fresh_program_rerun_required_for_final_pass\" should be true as per the boundary.\n\n\"hallucination_risk_detected\": false.\n\n\"missing_assumption_detected\": false.\n\n\"operator_constraints_respected\": true.\n\n\"overreach_detected\": false.\n\n\"round1_did_not_claim_direct_gate_mutation\": true.\n\nAll good.\n\nNow, the round2_verdict: I'll set \"round1_supported_no_corrections\". But is there a possibility that \"blocks_now33_candidate_consumption_guard\" is needed if the guard is fundamentally flawed? No, it's not. The guard is good. So \"round1_supported_no_corrections\" is fine.\n\nHowever, note that the round1 recommended closeout label \"NO_WRITEBACK_CLOSEOUT_AFTER_DEEPSEEK_ROUND2\". That suggests round1 believes after round2, the guard can pass. We are round2, and we agree. So no contradictions.\n\nThus, final JSON.\n\nLet's produce."
        },
        "logprobs": null,
        "finish_reason": "stop"
      }
    ],
    "usage": {
      "prompt_tokens": 10284,
      "completion_tokens": 7833,
      "total_tokens": 18117,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 0
      },
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 7347
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 0,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 10284
    },
    "system_fingerprint": "fp_9954b31ca7_prod0820_fp8_kvcache_20260402"
  },
  "raw_response_meta": {
    "id": "a1f384c0-9d37-49f0-bf86-694e0a603025",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "usage": {
      "prompt_tokens": 10284,
      "completion_tokens": 7833,
      "total_tokens": 18117,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 0
      },
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 7347
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 0,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 10284
    },
    "finish_reason": "stop",
    "content_chars": 2009,
    "reasoning_content_present": true,
    "reasoning_content_chars": 32228
  }
}