Hiro development journal

Repository review identifies the missing connection in the improvement pipeline

Review and local proposed fixes completed; no runtime deployment Machine-readable JSON

Executive summary

A repository-wide source and history review traced the current assistant, continuous controller, candidate construction, evaluation, and activation paths. The reviewed runtime branch is codex/rsi-first-cycle at 6781ba741b6e47f52d0397d9a372aa7111ecd389.

The main limitation is the connection between an observed defect, a causal diagnosis, candidate authoring, a trustworthy product test, and the exact implementation being evaluated. More extraction campaigns alone will not complete this connection.

The recommended next step is one reproducible production-defect episode through the existing controller: freeze acceptance criteria, provide bounded source and diagnostic access, test the actual product path, and retain existing promotion and probation requirements.

Three narrow proposed fixes were prepared and tested locally. They remain review artifacts, with no changes pushed to Hiro and no production process, queue, candidate, or model modified.

Work completed

Source and historical reconstruction

Completed within available evidence
  • All 560 tracked files in the pinned source snapshot matched their Git blob identities. All 422 Python files, totaling 115548 lines, parsed without syntax errors.
  • The review covered the active branch commit history, branch and pull-request metadata, and 213 existing journal entries through September 4, with detailed tracing of the latest incomplete boundaries.
  • The default main branch is an older June baseline; September runtime development and the separate extraction qualification work must be considered independently.
  • The latest recorded runtime campaign establishes construction success and entry to canary, but does not establish a subsequently completed promotion or probation.

Improvement pipeline design

Implementation plan prepared
  • Recommend a single immutable episode contract joining origin, base revision, reproduction, acceptance criteria, causal hypothesis, edit authority, candidate identity, evaluation receipts, and terminal outcome.
  • Candidate authoring needs bounded inspection of complete relevant code, callers, and diagnostics inside the existing isolated worktree, followed by targeted tests owned by the harness.
  • Evaluation should exercise the real product path and distinguish semantic correctness from surface contract compliance. Component audits remain useful when labeled according to what they actually execute.
  • External research should supply evidence for a measured current product gap. Generic reproduction and relevance assessment need an actual positive path to candidate construction, with unsupported ideas retaining explicit non-candidate outcomes.
  • Keep the current model profile, stable governor, activation transaction, rollback, and production probation timing. No new model, parallel control plane, or numbered qualification phase is proposed.

Bounded proposed repairs and regression evidence

Prepared and locally verified; not deployed
  • Prepared incident backlog handling, CI execution, and promotion-provenance hardening changes, together with focused regression coverage.
  • Three desired-behavior checks failed against the original source and passed against the proposed source.
  • Updated test fixtures and added checks for the affected invariants. Public reporting omits implementation details of unresolved integrity weaknesses.
  • A private review report and reproducible evidence bundle document the findings, proposed patch, scope, and limitations.

Previously incomplete work

Next actions specified
  • Preserve the already completed September 4 evidence-adapter, retry-contract, and task-inference repairs rather than repeating them.
  • First retrieve current live runtime and transaction evidence before deciding what happened to the recorded canary candidate.
  • Complete one ordinary incident-to-implementation episode, repairing its first unresolved boundary, before expanding broad research transfer.
  • Preserve the original extraction campaign outcomes and define any new representation/transfer acceptance criteria prospectively. Better inference reliability does not by itself establish semantic or downstream usefulness.

Decisions and reasoning

Validation and evidence

CheckStatusResult
Pinned source identity and syntax inventory passed 560 tracked files matched Git blob identities; all 422 Python files parsed without syntax errors.
Existing focused regression group on original source passed 89 passed in 21.94 seconds.
Controller and restricted-execution group on original source passed 69 passed, one skipped in 2.09 seconds. The skip requires the user host WSL2 executor.
Existing interaction-loop tests on original source passed 28 passed in 0.57 seconds.
New desired-behavior reproductions passed Three checks failed against original source as expected and all three passed against proposed source in 0.47 seconds.
Focused regression group with proposed changes passed 97 passed in 23.98 seconds, including eight new provenance cases.
Interaction-loop regression group with proposed changes passed 29 passed in 0.60 seconds, including a durable backlog/restart check.
Proposed patch application passed git apply --check passed against the pinned original snapshot.
Complete Hiro regression suite not run Not rerun during this review. The September 4 journal full-suite result remains historical evidence.
Live Windows, WSL2, local-model, activation, and probation verification not run The user host was unavailable in this review environment; no current runtime or deployment claim is made.
Journal multi-entry tests passed npm run test:hiro passed for timestamp validation, same-day ordering, and legacy compatibility.
Journal production build passed npm run build passed, including generation/validation of 214 journal entries and the TypeScript/Vite production build.

Current state

Next steps