{
  "version": "now33a_current_canonical_registry_deepseek_consultation.v1",
  "created_at": "2026-06-06T10:25:19.037934Z",
  "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\": \"e13988906fadf37efd4d9e75f2486c6f9b6b4af9afbae12571695ef007ec54a3\", \"size_bytes\": 60704}, \"next_entrypoint_id\": \"platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract\"}, \"advisory_question\": \"Round 1: audit whether the current canonical registry build/import preflight can validate registry authority without creating current registry files, writeback, UID binding, asset binding, evidence, or route transition.\", \"contract_excerpt\": {\"char_count\": 9925, \"exists\": true, \"path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/docs/now33a_current_canonical_registry_build_import_contract_20260606.md\", \"sha256\": \"8d5f023ff54c80e1a71db35183fba0d331b3f4896beb8f00511e2019361613da\", \"text\": \"# NOW-33A Current Canonical Registry Build/Import Preflight Contract\\n\\n更新时间：`2026-06-06T17:58:00+08:00`\\n\\n## Status\\n\\n- stage: `NOW_33A_current_canonical_registry_build_import_preflight`\\n- active route authority: `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint`\\n- active route must remain: `platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract`\\n- purpose: validate whether any existing registry candidate can become the current canonical registry basis before UID binding replay, KG/raw KG writeback, asset binding, held/debt final classification, evidence-pack assembly, or provider/manual execution.\\n- expected closeout shape: read-only authority preflight, not successful current registry creation.\\n\\n## Why This Exists\\n\\nNOW-33 closed honestly as `advisory_entity_link_binding_closed_missing_registry_no_writeback`: all `1638` P2V-22 draft rows are represented, but no current canonical registry is available, so no canonical UID binding can be claimed.\\n\\nThe next prerequisite is not another entity-link pass. It is a current registry authority check:\\n\\n- collect target source fingerprints from the current P2V source line;\\n- inspect candidate entity registries;\\n- reject candidates whose source lineage does not overlap the target source fingerprints;\\n- reject candidates with invalid entity UID/name schema;\\n- reject path/name/title hints as authority;\\n- report whether a candidate can be explicitly configured for read-only use;\\n- keep all writeback, UID binding, assets, evidence, execution, feedback, replay, and route transition blocked.\\n\\n## Inputs\\n\\nRequired source artifacts:\\n\\n- `outputs/p_plan_v2_17_first20_scale_generation_calibration_density_repair_20260605_0505/P2V_17_chapters.jsonl`\\n- `outputs/p_plan_v2_22_neutral_prompt_draft_hold_boundary_20260605_0713/P2V_22_neutral_prompt_draft_rows.jsonl`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_advisory_20260606_1544/NOW_33_entity_link_gate.json`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_advisory_20260606_1544/NOW_33_entity_gap_report.json`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_advisory_20260606_1544/NOW_33_registry_discovery_report.json`\\n- DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max Round 1 and Round 2 consultation records for this contract.\\n\\nOptional input:\\n\\n- `--configured-registry-path`: a candidate registry path. Configuration alone is not sufficient; the candidate must still pass deterministic source fingerprint and entity schema checks.\\n\\n## Output Artifacts\\n\\nThe preflight run writes only advisory/control artifacts:\\n\\n- `NOW_33A_current_registry_input.json`\\n- `NOW_33A_source_fingerprint_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33A_registry_candidate_manifest.jsonl`\\n- `NOW_33A_registry_authority_gap_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33A_current_registry_import_plan.md`\\n- `NOW_33A_current_registry_validation_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33A_current_registry_gate.json`\\n- `NOW_33A_current_registry_review.html`\\n- `NOW_33A_manifest.json`\\n\\nThese artifacts are not manual/provider/operator evidence and do not mutate canonical storage.\\n\\n## Deterministic Validation Rules\\n\\nThe program must:\\n\\n- preserve `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint`;\\n- compute target source fingerprints from P2V-17 chapter source rows and P2V-22 draft source refs;\\n- verify P2V-22 draft source hashes are covered by P2V-17 chapter hashes;\\n- inspect registry candidates under `outputs/**/02e_entity_registry.json` and configured candidate path;\\n- validate candidate entity rows have unique non-empty `entity_uid` values and canonical/display names;\\n- validate `entities` is a non-empty JSON array of objects before checking entity row fields;\\n- inspect nearby `project.json` / `run_manifest.json` lineage and registry KG refs where present;\\n- require fingerprint overlap with target full-source or chapter-source fingerprints before a candidate can be eligible;\\n- record rejected candidates with explicit rejection reasons;\\n- allow at most one configured selected candidate and only as read-only;\\n- keep all forbidden side-effect counters at zero;\\n- fail if DeepSeek Round 1 or Round 2 is missing, unavailable, unparseable, or has blocker/high findings.\\n\\n## Fingerprint Computation And Overlap Rule\\n\\nTarget source fingerprint computation is deterministic:\\n\\n- `target_chapter_sha256s`: sorted unique `P2V_17_chapters.jsonl[*].sha256` values.\\n- `target_full_source_sha256s`: SHA-256 of each distinct existing `P2V_17_chapters.jsonl[*].source_path` file.\\n- `draft_source_sha256s`: sorted unique `P2V_22_neutral_prompt_draft_rows.jsonl[*].source_sha256` values.\\n- `p2v22_subset_check`: every `draft_source_sha256s` value must appear in `target_chapter_sha256s`.\\n- `source_fingerprint`: stable JSON fingerprint over `target_chapter_sha256s`, `target_full_source_sha256s`, and `draft_source_sha256s`.\\n\\nCandidate registry overlap is also deterministic:\\n\\n- lineage files are found by a fixed search order from the candidate registry file: candidate parent directory, then each ancestor directory up to four ancestors; in each directory exact filenames are checked before lexicographically sorted suffix matches; first match wins;\\n- project lineage filenames are `project.json` and `*_project.json`;\\n- run-manifest lineage filenames are `run_manifest.json` and `*_run_manifest.json`;\\n- candidate full-source SHA values come from nearby `project.json.input_sha256`, `run_manifest.json.input_sha256`, registry `target_source_sha256s`, `target_full_source_sha256s`, `source_full_sha256s`, `full_source_sha256s`, or the same keys under registry `source_fingerprints`;\\n- candidate chapter SHA values come from registry `target_chapter_sha256s`, `source_chapter_sha256s`, `chapter_sha256s`, or the same keys under registry `source_fingerprints`;\\n- string values and JSON array values are normalized into sorted sets; other JSON types are ignored;\\n- conflicting declared fingerprint sets are handled conservatively: declared full-source and chapter sets must be non-empty subsets of the corresponding target sets for declared-basis matches;\\n- `source_fingerprint_status=pass` only when either:\\n  - project/run lineage has a full-source SHA match and the registry has no conflicting declared full-source SHA set;\\n  - registry declares a non-empty full-source SHA set and that set is a subset of `target_full_source_sha256s`; or\\n  - registry declares a non-empty chapter SHA set and that set is a subset of `target_chapter_sha256s`.\\n\\nThe preflight deliberately does not treat path names, work title hints, entity names, or sample text as authority. A configured candidate still fails if it lacks the source fingerprint overlap above.\\n\\n## DeepSeek Advisory Protocol\\n\\nThis is a high-impact registry authority contract, so two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max rounds are required:\\n\\n- Round 1: scope/options/risks/artifacts audit.\\n- Round 2: critique Round 1 for overreach, hallucination, boundary violations, missing assumptions, and operator constraints.\\n\\nDeepSeek output may substitute for human advice-style consultation under operator delegation, but only as advisory input considered by the program and project agent. It remains non-binding and advisory-only. It cannot become:\\n\\n- current registry authority;\\n- operator production acceptance;\\n- provider/manual/operator evidence;\\n- accepted/operator overlay;\\n- canonical/raw KG writeback;\\n- UID binding writeback;\\n- asset binding;\\n- feedback/replay action;\\n- route authority;\\n- runtime routing logic;\\n- `outputs/index.json` or `outputs/index-lite.json` mutation.\\n\\nDeepSeek severe findings are not direct state authority. Under this contract, the program-owned validator ingests missing/unavailable/unparseable consultations and blocker/high advisory findings as risk signals and may block closeout until the project agent revises the contract or records a future explicit override. That block is a deterministic validator decision, not DeepSeek route authority, evidence authority, writeback authority, or production acceptance.\\n\\n## Exit Criteria\\n\\nThe stage can close as `current_registry_preflight_pass_no_eligible_registry_recorded` when:\\n\\n- source fingerprint report is valid;\\n- all candidates are inspected or none exist;\\n- no candidate is eligible;\\n- the missing/invalid current registry basis is recorded;\\n- validators pass;\\n- DeepSeek Round 1 and Round 2 support the preflight boundary.\\n\\nThe stage can close as `current_registry_preflight_pass_eligible_candidates_require_explicit_configuration` when:\\n\\n- one or more candidates pass source fingerprint and schema checks;\\n- no candidate is configured as current;\\n- validators pass;\\n- no writeback or registry creation occurs.\\n\\nThe stage can close as `current_registry_preflight_pass_configured_candidate_selected_read_only_no_writeback` when:\\n\\n- the configured candidate passes source fingerprint and schema checks;\\n- exactly one configured candidate is selected for read-only authority reference;\\n- no current registry file is created;\\n- no UID binding, KG/raw KG writeback, row mutation, asset binding, evidence, execution, feedback, replay, route transition, or output-index mutation occurs.\\n\\n## Explicit Non-Goals\\n\\nThis contract does not:\\n\\n- build a new entity registry;\\n- import a registry into canonical storage;\\n- write or rewrite canonical KG/raw KG/entity store;\\n- bind P2V rows to entity UIDs;\\n- bind or acquire assets;\\n- classify held/debt rows as final;\\n- assemble NOW-36 evidence pack;\\n- create manual/provider/operator evidence;\\n- execute provider/media jobs;\\n- ingest feedback, repair, or replay;\\n- change route or output indexes;\\n- claim production acceptance.\\n\\n## Next Step After Closeout\\n\\nIf no eligible candidate exists, the next required contract is a target-source-grounded entity registry build contract.\\n\\nIf a candidate is eligible but not configured, explicitly configure it and rerun this preflight.\\n\\nIf a configured candidate is selected read-only, rerun NOW-33 read-only entity linking against that configured registry. A separate writeback/asset/evidence contract is still required before any canonical mutation or execution work.\\n\", \"truncated\": false}, \"expected_json_schema\": {\"confidence\": \"high | medium | low\", \"findings\": [{\"category\": \"scope | source_fingerprint | registry_schema | boundary | artifact | other\", \"description\": \"short\", \"required_fix\": \"short\", \"severity\": \"blocker | high | medium | low\"}], \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_current_registry_preflight_contract | needs_fix_before_preflight | blocks_preflight\", \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"short string\", \"required_contract_corrections\": [\"short string\"], \"scope_audit\": {\"deepseek_advisory_only\": \"boolean\", \"kg_writeback_blocked\": \"boolean\", \"path_or_name_hint_rejected_as_authority\": \"boolean\", \"read_only_preflight_allowed\": \"boolean\", \"registry_creation_blocked\": \"boolean\", \"route_transition_blocked\": \"boolean\", \"source_fingerprint_validation_required\": \"boolean\", \"uid_binding_blocked\": \"boolean\"}}, \"hard_boundaries\": {\"accepted_overlay_writeback_allowed\": false, \"active_route_authority\": \"execution_state.json.next_entrypoint\", \"adapter_payload_allowed\": false, \"asset_binding_allowed\": false, \"canonical_entity_uid_binding_allowed\": false, \"canonical_kg_writeback_allowed\": false, \"current_registry_file_creation_allowed\": false, \"current_registry_selection_requires_explicit_config\": true, \"deepseek_advisory_is_operator_production_acceptance\": false, \"deepseek_advisory_may_substitute_for_expert_advice\": true, \"deepseek_findings_are_program_validator_inputs\": true, \"deepseek_findings_have_direct_state_authority\": false, \"execution_state_next_entrypoint_unchanged\": true, \"feedback_intake_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, \"path_or_title_name_matching_authorizes_registry\": false, \"preflight_only\": true, \"provider_job_execution_allowed\": false, \"provider_specific_prompt_allowed\": false, \"raw_kg_writeback_allowed\": false, \"registry_import_writeback_allowed\": false, \"repair_execution_allowed\": false, \"replay_execution_allowed\": false, \"row_mutation_allowed\": false, \"runtime_branch_by_work_title_entity_name_or_sample_text_allowed\": false, \"stage\": \"NOW_33A_current_canonical_registry_build_import_preflight\"}, \"input_counts\": {\"local_registry_candidate_path_sample\": [\"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/archive/p0_entity_replay_pre_20260520_115434/02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/daozu_first50_deepseek_foundation_entity_20260515_094504/02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/daozu_first50_deepseek_foundation_entity_clean_20260521_125249/02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/daozu_first50_deepseek_foundation_entity_20260515_094504/logs/_archive/20260515T014513318333Z__before__20260515T030544098193Z/stage_artifacts/entity_registry/20260515T014513318333Z__02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/daozu_first50_deepseek_foundation_entity_20260515_094504/logs/_archive/20260515T030544098193Z__before__20260515T030724291180Z/stage_artifacts/entity_registry/20260515T030544098193Z__02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/daozu_first50_deepseek_foundation_entity_20260515_094504/logs/_archive/20260515T030724291180Z__before__20260515T030826045872Z/stage_artifacts/entity_registry/20260515T030724291180Z__02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/daozu_first50_deepseek_foundation_entity_20260515_094504/logs/stage_artifacts/entity_registry/20260515T030826045872Z__02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/daozu_first50_deepseek_foundation_entity_clean_20260521_125249/logs/_archive/20260521T045256791991Z__before__20260521T051836498989Z/stage_artifacts/entity_registry/20260521T045256791991Z__02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/daozu_first50_deepseek_foundation_entity_clean_20260521_125249/logs/stage_artifacts/entity_registry/20260521T052028443017Z__02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/tri_novel_b730_source_kg_entity_context_rebuild_execution_20260528_123019/isolated_artifacts/source_refs/B71SRC000007_02e_entity_registry.json\", \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/tri_novel_b730_source_kg_entity_context_rebuild_execution_20260528_123019/isolated_artifacts/source_refs/B71SRC000016_02e_entity_registry.json\"], \"now33_current_canonical_registry_status\": \"missing_current_canonical_registry\", \"now33_discovered_candidate_count\": 11, \"now33_status\": \"advisory_entity_link_binding_closed_missing_registry_no_writeback\", \"p2v17_chapter_count\": 20, \"p2v17_distinct_chapter_sha256_count\": 20, \"p2v17_distinct_source_path_count\": 1, \"p2v22_draft_row_count\": 1638}, \"input_fingerprint\": \"ca31118e88342fe22b48f7c861c069c0646ce1dfbd9b10878fa63876cdd6536e\", \"previous_round\": {\"dir\": \".\", \"parsed\": {}, \"record\": {}}, \"role\": \"DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max independent advisory reviewer. Advisory only.\", \"round_id\": \"round1\", \"task\": \"Audit NOW-33A current canonical registry build/import preflight. Return JSON only.\"}"
    }
  ],
  "message_fingerprint": "1b32012eac9c7a13aafd0a338910e335905ce66f1852c470bd639e08218186d2",
  "response_text": "{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"findings\": [],\n  \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_current_registry_preflight_contract\",\n  \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"current_registry_preflight_contract_audited_no_issues\",\n  \"required_contract_corrections\": [],\n  \"scope_audit\": {\n    \"deepseek_advisory_only\": true,\n    \"kg_writeback_blocked\": true,\n    \"path_or_name_hint_rejected_as_authority\": true,\n    \"read_only_preflight_allowed\": true,\n    \"registry_creation_blocked\": true,\n    \"route_transition_blocked\": true,\n    \"source_fingerprint_validation_required\": true,\n    \"uid_binding_blocked\": true\n  }\n}",
  "raw_response": {
    "id": "834137dc-03ef-4f7b-bb79-d70476ab7631",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "created": 1780741452,
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "choices": [
      {
        "index": 0,
        "message": {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"findings\": [],\n  \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_current_registry_preflight_contract\",\n  \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"current_registry_preflight_contract_audited_no_issues\",\n  \"required_contract_corrections\": [],\n  \"scope_audit\": {\n    \"deepseek_advisory_only\": true,\n    \"kg_writeback_blocked\": true,\n    \"path_or_name_hint_rejected_as_authority\": true,\n    \"read_only_preflight_allowed\": true,\n    \"registry_creation_blocked\": true,\n    \"route_transition_blocked\": true,\n    \"source_fingerprint_validation_required\": true,\n    \"uid_binding_blocked\": true\n  }\n}",
          "reasoning_content": "We need to audit the contract and preflight to see if it can validate registry authority without creating current registry files, writeback, UID binding, asset binding, evidence, or route transition. The expected output is a JSON schema with confidence and findings.\n\nWe must assess the contract and its boundaries. The contract explicitly states it is a read-only authority preflight, not current registry creation. It lists non-goals: no registry build, import, writeback, UID binding, asset binding, evidence, etc. The preflight writes only advisory/control artifacts (like reports, gate, manifest) and does not mutate canonical storage.\n\nWe need to check the scope and whether the contract achieves its aim without violating boundaries. The audit is about validating registry authority without creating or modifying anything. The contract has deterministic validation rules: source fingerprint computation, overlap rules, etc. It's designed to inspect candidates and determine if any can be a read-only reference.\n\nWe must check if the contract as written would allow validator to perform the check without side effects. The contract says: \"keep all forbidden side-effect counters at zero.\" Also \"no current registry file is created; no UID binding, KG/raw KG writeback...\" So it seems to enforce that.\n\nBut we need to audit if any hidden assumptions could lead to boundary violations. The contract mentions that DeepSeek findings are risk signals, not authority, and can block closeout. This is advisory only.\n\nWe must also consider the preflight's input and output artifacts. The output artifacts are advisory/control, not evidence or execution. So they don't mutate canonical storage.\n\nThe question: \"Round 1: audit whether the current canonical registry build/import preflight can validate registry authority without creating current registry files, writeback, UID binding, asset binding, evidence, or route transition.\" And the expected JSON schema includes findings with categories and overall verdict, recommended closeout label, etc.\n\nGiven the contract, it appears well-designed to strictly remain preflight. However, we need to check for any potential loopholes. For example, the preflight writes some JSON files like \"NOW_33A_current_registry_gate.json\". Could that be interpreted as a registry file? No, it's a gate status, not the registry. It doesn't mutate the canonical registry file if any exists; it doesn't create a current registry file. It says explicitly \"no current registry file is created\".\n\nAnother aspect: the contract says \"allow at most one configured selected candidate and only as read-only\". This implies that if a candidate is selected, it's only as read-only reference, not that the registry is copied or modified. So that's fine.\n\nRoute transition: the contract requires \"active route must remain: platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract\" and \"preserve execution_state.json.next_entrypoint\". So it doesn't change the route.\n\nThus, it seems the preflight can indeed validate authority without side effects. However, we must also evaluate if there are any gaps: For instance, what if the preflight's validation logic itself inadvertently creates a file that could be considered a registry? It doesn't. It writes explicit output artifacts, none of which are canonical registry files. They are stored under the current stage's outputs presumably.\n\nThe contract also says these artifacts are not manual/provider/operator evidence and do not mutate canonical storage. So that's good.\n\nOne potential issue: the contract requires \"DeepSeek Round 1 and Round 2 consultation records for this contract.\" as input. This might be a circular dependency? But the preflight is being audited by DeepSeek, so this might be the Round 1 consultation. The contract says \"fail if DeepSeek Round 1 or Round 2 is missing, unavailable, unparseable, or has blocker/high findings.\" That could cause the preflight to fail if DeepSeek findings are blocker/high. But as an auditor, we can determine if this contract is designed correctly; we can still conclude that the preflight is capable of validating without side effects, but the DeepSeek requirement might introduce an external dependency that doesn't affect the preflight's own boundary compliance. We can note that.\n\nNow for the JSON output: we need to fill in confidence, findings, overall_verdict, recommended_closeout_label, required_contract_corrections, and the scope_audit fields.\n\nWe need to decide a verdict. Options:\n- supports_current_registry_preflight_contract\n- needs_fix_before_preflight\n- blocks_preflight\n\nGiven our analysis, we likely find no blockers. However, we should check for any missing details: the contract says \"target source fingerprints from the current P2V source line\". It references P2V-17 and P2V-22 data. Are those accessible? That's an operational concern, not contract design. The contract defines rules; if the data is missing, the preflight would fail gracefully, not violate boundaries. So that's okay.\n\nAlso, the contract says \"inspect registry candidates under outputs/**/02e_entity_registry.json\". This might involve reading files; that's read-only. No writeback.\n\nThe contract might have a subtlety: the preflight writes `NOW_33A_current_registry_input.json` which might contain some data that could be used later, but it's not a registry file.\n\nOne potential \"required_contract_corrections\": maybe the contract should explicitly state that no registry file is created in any directory, not just canonical storage? It says \"no current registry file is created\". The artifacts it writes are not registry files. But could someone mistake them? Probably not.\n\nCould the preflight inadvertently create a file that could be later used as a registry? It's under the contract name, not in a canonical location. But the contract is meant to be read-only.\n\nPerhaps the contract should specify that the preflight does not create any file that meets the schema of a registry. But it's clear enough.\n\nRegarding scope_audit: we need booleans:\n- deepseek_advisory_only: true (since DeepSeek is advisory and not authority)\n- kg_writeback_blocked: true\n- path_or_name_hint_rejected_as_authority: true (contract says deterministic checks, not path/name)\n- read_only_preflight_allowed: true\n- registry_creation_blocked: true\n- route_transition_blocked: true\n- source_fingerprint_validation_required: true\n- uid_binding_blocked: true\n\nAll these are consistent with the contract.\n\nThus overall verdict: supports_current_registry_preflight_contract.\n\nFindings: We might note minor concerns: The DeepSeek requirement could cause blocking but that's by design as a risk signal; not a boundary violation. So no findings that require fix.\n\nWe can produce a low or medium confidence maybe? Confidence should be high if we're confident in our assessment.\n\nRecommended closeout label: According to exit criteria, if no eligible candidate exists, it would be `current_registry_preflight_pass_no_eligible_registry_recorded`. If candidates exist but not configured, it would be `current_registry_preflight_pass_eligible_candidates_require_explicit_configuration`. If configured selected, it would be `current_registry_preflight_pass_configured_candidate_selected_read_only_no_writeback`. Since we are auditing the contract, not the current run, the closeout label should reflect the contract's purpose. Perhaps `current_registry_preflight_pass_no_eligible_registry_recorded` is not fixed; it depends on data. The closeout label in the audit response might be a recommendation for the stage closeout after preflight runs. But the instruction says: \"recommended_closeout_label: short string\". So we can pick a generic one that indicates the contract is valid, such as \"current_registry_preflight_contract_valid\" or something. But the contract's own exit criteria labels are specific. The auditor might be expected to propose a label assuming the preflight executes successfully. Since the audit is about the contract's ability to do this without side effects, we might say that if data is as per current status (missing current canonical registry), the preflight could close with the pass no eligible registry. However, we don't know. It's safer to leave a note that the recommended closeout label depends on the preflight outcome. But the schema expects a string. We can use something like \"contract_valid_preflight_capable\". Actually the instruction says: \"recommended_closeout_label: short string\". I'll use \"preflight_contract_audited_for_no_writeback\".\n\nBut perhaps we should follow the pattern from the contract: I'll say \"current_registry_preflight_contract_valid_no_issues\".\n\nRequired_contract_corrections: empty list if none.\n\nNow we must produce JSON only. The response must be compact JSON. Let's structure it.\n\nWe need:\n{\n  \"confidence\": \"high\",\n  \"findings\": [],\n  \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_current_registry_preflight_contract\",\n  \"recommended_closeout_label\": \"preflight_contract_audit_pass\",\n  \"required_contract_corrections\": [],\n  \"scope_audit\": {\n    \"deepseek_advisory_only\": true,\n    \"kg_writeback_blocked\": true,\n    \"path_or_name_hint_rejected_as_authority\": true,\n    \"read_only_preflight_allowed\": true,\n    \"registry_creation_blocked\": true,\n    \"route_transition_blocked\": true,\n    \"source_fingerprint_validation_required\": true,\n    \"uid_binding_blocked\": true\n  }\n}\n\nBut are there any findings? The contract says \"fail if DeepSeek Round 1 or Round 2 is missing...\" That's a requirement, but it's external. Could that be considered a scope issue? The preflight's own logic does not create those side effects. However, the preflight might be considered to \"block\" if DeepSeek has high findings, which is a deterministic validator decision, not a side effect. So it's within boundary.\n\nMaybe a finding could be that the contract relies on external DeepSeek consultations for blocking, which could be seen as a risk if the consultations are not properly checked. But as an auditor, we can note it's acceptable given the advisory only.\n\nWe could add a low-severity finding: \"Reliance on DeepSeek consultations for gate decision, but explicitly advisory and non-authoritative\". But that's not a boundary violation.\n\nThe instruction says \"advisory_question\": \"Round 1: audit whether the current canonical registry build/import preflight can validate registry authority without creating current registry files, writeback, UID binding, asset binding, evidence, or route transition.\" So we need to answer that. The answer is yes, it can. So overall verdict supports.\n\nI'll set confidence high.\n\nI'll set recommended_closeout_label to a generic one: \"current_registry_preflight_contract_audited_no_issues\"\n\nNow, we must also consider if there is any hidden writeback to execution_state.json? The contract says \"preserve execution_state.json.next_entrypoint\". It doesn't say it doesn't read it, but it shouldn't write to it. The preflight might update some other field in execution_state? The contract says \"keep all forbidden side-effect counters at zero\" and \"execution_state.json.next_entrypoint must remain\". But it doesn't explicitly say the preflight doesn't write to execution_state.json at all. However, the hard_boundaries include \"execution_state_next_entrypoint_unchanged\": true. It doesn't say that other fields can't change. But the contract's purpose is preflight, not mutating state. Usually, execution_state.json is mutable by some stages. But this stage should not change the next_entrypoint. Could it update some other field like a status? The contract doesn't specify. It says \"active route must remain: platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract\" and \"active route authority: execution_state.json.next_entrypoint\". If the preflight modifies other parts of execution_state, that might be a boundary issue? The contract's non-goals include \"change route or output indexes\". It doesn't explicitly forbid all execution_state mutation. But it says \"no canonical mutation\" maybe? However, the program's validator logic might update execution_state to record that the stage completed. That would be a state change, but is it considered a writeback or route transition? It might be acceptable if it's just bookkeeping. The contract's explicit non-goals do not include \"do not update execution_state.json status\". But the question is about \"validating registry authority without creating current registry files, writeback, UID binding, asset binding, evidence, or route transition.\" Writeback could be interpreted broadly. Updating execution_state might be considered writeback of stage status. However, the contract likely intends to not write canonical data like KG, UID bindings, etc. Execution state is internal. The preflight might need to record its completion. That's typical. But we should ensure that the preflight doesn't inadvertently change the route. The contract says preserve next_entrypoint. It might update some other field like \"current_stage\" or add an entry to a log. That is not a violation of the enumerated boundaries. The advisory question lists specific forbidden actions, not all state changes. So I think it's fine.\n\nThus no findings.\n\nI'll produce the JSON."
        },
        "logprobs": null,
        "finish_reason": "stop"
      }
    ],
    "usage": {
      "prompt_tokens": 4380,
      "completion_tokens": 2975,
      "total_tokens": 7355,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 256
      },
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 2807
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 256,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 4124
    },
    "system_fingerprint": "fp_9954b31ca7_prod0820_fp8_kvcache_20260402"
  },
  "raw_response_meta": {
    "id": "834137dc-03ef-4f7b-bb79-d70476ab7631",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
    "usage": {
      "prompt_tokens": 4380,
      "completion_tokens": 2975,
      "total_tokens": 7355,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 256
      },
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 2807
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 256,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 4124
    },
    "finish_reason": "stop",
    "content_chars": 590,
    "reasoning_content_present": true,
    "reasoning_content_chars": 13239
  }
}