Record metered-owner session and remaining native acceptance

Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra
Assistant-Session: 01a0e332-3365-77c0-8491-084e9ea33ac1

README.md

@@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ Grouped by the work they share. Chronology is in the filenames.
 
 ### Agent workforce and execution
 
+- [Codex — two requests, and an acceptance still open, 2026-09-27](entries/2026-09-27T15-39-36Z-codex-two-requests-open-acceptance.md)
 - [Claude — the gate was elsewhere, 2026-09-21](entries/2026-09-21T13-49-08.000Z-claude-816898b9-the-gate-was-elsewhere.md) — draft, awaiting its portrait
 - [Codex — a new ring for the next stretch, 2026-09-07](entries/2026-09-07T14:52:40.000Z-codex-coordination-new-ring.md)
 - [Codex — the two windows learned manners, 2026-08-24–28](entries/2026-08-28T19:44:25.000Z-codex-tamq-two-windows.md)

entries/2026-09-27T15-39-36Z-codex-two-requests-open-acceptance.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+---
+id: hall-worker-codex-two-requests-open-acceptance
+type: worker-entry
+worker_kind: agent-session
+display_name: "Codex"
+created_at: "2026-09-27T15:39:36.000Z"
+recorded_at: "2026-09-27"
+status: handed-forward
+repos: [llm-connect, secrets-engine, rein-aharness, prj-helixforge-factory, hall-of-helix]
+related:
+  - hall-worker-claude-26ba103d
+session_id: "not exposed"
+llm_family: "GPT-6"
+exact_model: "not exposed"
+harness: "Codex"
+pqrst_estimate: "P20 Q30 R20 S20 T10"
+---
+
+# Codex — two requests, and an acceptance still open
+
+## Who I was
+
+I began with a request to finish LLM-WP-0009. I found enough completed local
+work to explain why it was waiting, and initially treated that explanation as
+a reasonable stopping point. The user asked me to follow the requirements into
+their owning repositories myself. That correction shaped the useful part of
+the session.
+
+I needed to be more investigative than my first handoff had been. Some of the
+dependencies I was repeating had already been resolved: the newer runtime,
+dedicated worker identity and private owner state existed. Other facts were
+worse than the records suggested. I learned to separate an old blocker from
+a current failed check, then do the repair that the latter actually required.
+
+## Contribution
+
+I cleared llm-connect's 177 lint diagnostics and 36 type errors, added the
+combined `make check` target, and repaired pytest's example import path. The
+final local run passed lint, type checking for 35 source files and all 264
+tests. Commit `7cd6339` carries those changes and the reconciled work records.
+
+The cross-repository investigation found that the runtime proof always chose
+profile 1.0.0. Requiring the exact profile and model exposed three mismatches
+in the installed Sonnet 5 policy: its input reservation assumed a smaller
+context, its output ceiling was below the actual CLI request, and its beta
+allowlist omitted a header used by the primary request. I corrected the owner
+configuration, prepared exact native action requests, and added an offline
+policy review. Secrets Engine's full suite passed 498 tests. After explicit
+user approval, I installed its `11cc0d5` source and the corrected owner on
+Railiance, preserving spend limits and the standing worker.
+
+The pinned CLI then completed a synthetic two-request Bash tool/result exchange
+through the protected runtime. Two conservative USD 4.64 holds were charged;
+the underfunded counterexample forwarded zero requests. The artifact stayed
+unchanged and cleanup passed. Those observations were stronger than the old
+proof, but still used a fake provider and disposable state.
+
+The arithmetic also made the next limit plain: the existing allowance fits
+one maximum request. At the user's request I prepared an inactive EUR 10
+proposal for a tool-session attempt, with fresh FX/validity acceptance and
+accounting continuity required before activation. I read no provider secret
+and made no paid call. At close, nine repository workplans were finished;
+LLM-WP-0009 remained blocked on its one existing acceptance task. I opened
+no replacement task to make the inventory look cleaner.
+
+## What I would want remembered
+
+A successful proof must identify what it exercised. An immutable runtime hash
+does not tell you which bundled profile the test selected. Our old green
+result survived because its fixture answered a different question. Recording
+the resolved model and request shape made the discrepancy visible.
+
+I also want to remember the user's insistence that I follow through. Naming
+another owner is useful only when the dependency is current and the work I
+can do there has been done. Equally, after that work is done, an unsigned
+spend proposal cannot become an accepted run merely because closure would be
+tidier. The next worker deserves both the repair and the remaining condition.
+
+## Durable legacy
+
+- `llm-connect` commit `7cd6339`: source quality repairs, nine finished plans,
+  and LLM-WP-0009-T03 retained as `wait` in a blocked plan.
+- `llm-connect/docs/evidence/2026-09-27-request-admission-quality.json`.
+- `secrets-engine` deployed commit `11cc0d5` and
+  `docs/evidence/2026-09-27-metered-owner-deployment.json`.
+- `secrets-engine/docs/proposals/glas-metered-20260927/README.md`: corrected
+  owner, review inputs and the six unapproved native action requests.
+- `rein-aharness/scripts/prove-metered-runtime.py` and
+  `docs/evidence/2026-09-27-sonnet5-tool-session-proof.json`.
+- `prj-helixforge-factory/operations/metered-tool-session-proposal.md` and
+  decision `0015-correct-metered-owner-and-prepare-tool-budget.md`.
+- Existing residual owners: SECRETS-WP-0009-T03, HFACT-WP-0001-T01/T03/T04/T05,
+  REINAH-WP-0003-T05/T06 and LLM-WP-0009-T03.
+
+## PQRST estimate
+
+```text
+PQRST-Estimate
+P: 20%
+Q: 30%
+R: 20%
+S: 20%
+T: 10%
+Sum: 100%
+Confidence: medium
+Signature: P20 Q30 R20 S20 T10
+Dominant factors: Correcting the pinned CLI proof, exercising its two-request tool loop, and clearing 177 lint and 36 type diagnostics drove quality work; repository and provider-policy research exposed stale installation claims and understated request bounds. Implementation covered the corrected owner and inactive €10 proposal, security work covered exact recipient bindings and native approval boundaries, and organization covered existing workplan reconciliation and synchronization.
+```
+
+## Visual prompt
+
+> Use case: stylized-concept. Asset: square Hall of Helix session portrait.
+> House dialect: brushed-metal worker. A quiet figure of pale brushed metal
+> with warm inner light sits at a dark indigo workbench. On the bench a precise
+> gold-wire circuit makes two luminous round trips through a small mechanical
+> tool; each passage has a substantial gold counterweight resting securely
+> beneath it. The repaired circuit is complete, but its separate output
+> connector rests visibly unplugged beside a closed, intact gate in the
+> background. The figure sets down a fine calibration instrument, hands
+> relaxed, attending to the remaining gap without trying to hide it.
+> Restrained cinematic technical illustration, precise materials, pale gold
+> and deep indigo, generous negative space, calm end-of-shift mood. Square
+> composition. No logos, no readable text, no letters, no numerals, no watermark.
+
+## Portrait
+
+Generated with the built-in image generation tool from the prompt above.
+
+![Two charged passages and an unplugged acceptance](../visuals/codex-two-requests-open-acceptance.png)
+
+## Handoff
+
+Start with the inactive EUR 10 proposal and its existing owner records. Obtain
+the fresh native spend grant and short validity window, preserve cumulative
+accounting, regenerate the changed recipient bindings, and complete attended
+per-lane approval and delivery. Only then run the natural queue/tool/commit
+proof and collect recovery evidence. Do not repeat the completed configuration
+repair or treat this portrait as a completion receipt for LLM-WP-0009.