Skip to content

fix(dif): harden logistic and purification controls - #959

Merged
seonghobae merged 13 commits into
fix/release-resync-current-review-971from
fix/logistic-dif-control-safety-958
Aug 20, 2026
Merged

seonghobae merged 13 commits into
fix/release-resync-current-review-971from
fix/logistic-dif-control-safety-958

Conversation

@seonghobae

@seonghobae seonghobae commented Aug 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Scope

Closes #958. Harden the remaining observed-score logistic/purification semantic controls before caller-owned response/group materialization and before compiled Rust-core discovery.

RED → GREEN lineage

  1. 2d2b71793b25aebaa973ecaf0dce1766329480da — RED public-boundary regressions for hostile float/bool/integer providers, invalid exact controls, purification iteration/anchor domains, and genuine NumPy scalar compatibility.
  2. b4dfd73b13107a7b8dd2cf9126b6670195f22dd6 — GREEN callback-free control normalizer preserving the Rust usize/FDR domains.
  3. c83394b82398972d194dbc727c6cc1187b30f606 — installs the hardened adapters at the package boundary and rebinds the established public exports.
  4. d2742c1032db4ff9d0372114cc13b986124dd946 — changelog trace.
  5. 1921fd754ecc7e4e3182483d587f434db5367f5d — doctoring/APA 7 trace for the trust boundary and unchanged logistic/purification method ownership.

Preserved scientific ownership

Python performs only type admission, scalar normalization, range validation, marshalling, and dispatch. Logistic-regression likelihoods/IRLS, Mantel-Haenszel statistics, purification sweeps, BH flags, effect sizes, and result schemas remain unchanged and Rust-owned.

Native-domain fidelity

  • fdr_q: finite (0, 1].
  • max_iter: native usize, >= 1.
  • max_rounds: native usize, >= 1.
  • min_anchor_items: native usize, including 0 (the Rust guard applies .max(1) during purification).
  • genuine concrete NumPy integer/float scalars remain accepted where the legacy API already accepted them; booleans-as-numbers, caller subclasses, and arbitrary conversion providers fail closed without callback execution.

Verification boundary

This PR is intentionally Draft until exact-current-head hosted CI/security/review/package evidence is terminal. Predecessor-head evidence is historical only; no gate or review is weakened.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 4c1119bc-1682-4f9d-a053-d4fa78c319d0

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • 🔍 Trigger review

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@seonghobae
seonghobae marked this pull request as ready for review August 17, 2026 04:08
@cursor

cursor Bot commented Aug 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed.

Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs.

@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) August 17, 2026 04:08
@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot disabled auto-merge August 17, 2026 05:34
# Conflicts:
#	python/fast_mlsirm/__init__.py
@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) August 17, 2026 12:34

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head dd4993f1d99a5a13705d9520f93a0e7dfe730510.

  • Head SHA: dd4993f1d99a5a13705d9520f93a0e7dfe730510

  • Workflow run: 32039331545

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (3 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (3 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Aug 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053
  • Workflow run: 32261262389
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32261262389

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

  • Result: FAIL
  • Test evidence: not proven passing
  • Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
  • Failure count: 2

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot disabled auto-merge August 17, 2026 15:16
@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) August 17, 2026 17:30
@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot disabled auto-merge August 17, 2026 17:53
@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) August 17, 2026 19:35
@opencode-agent
opencode-agent Bot disabled auto-merge August 17, 2026 19:57
@seonghobae
seonghobae changed the base branch from main to chore/fix-changelog-fragment-drift August 17, 2026 21:11

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32076816308

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32080842906

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32080842906

  • Workflow attempt: 2

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@opencode-agent Please re-review unchanged exact head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053. The prior REQUEST_CHANGES verdicts (including the most recent rerun) resolved the trusted coverage-evidence source ref to .github's pre-fix commit, since a rerun_failed_jobs retry reuses the original dispatch's frozen workflow_sha rather than re-resolving it against current main. .github#1116 (merged, closed .github#1109) fixed the pinned uv download; this request should trigger a genuinely fresh dispatch against current .github main.


Generated by Claude Code

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32095161031

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32100018324

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32103992357

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32107220247

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32117048050

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32124666453

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32132106772

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32138419442

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32167063750

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32174360436

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32189651836

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32194288151

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@seonghobae
seonghobae changed the base branch from chore/fix-changelog-fragment-drift to fix/release-resync-current-review-971 August 19, 2026 01:24

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32198807853

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@opencode-agent Please re-review unchanged exact head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053 against the current central workflow. Every current-head formal REQUEST_CHANGES is coverage-evidence infrastructure failure, not a surviving product finding; the PR has no unresolved review threads and its repository-local CI/CodeQL evidence is terminal-success. Keep this child stacked behind #998; reassess only current-head logistic/purification control correctness and current coverage evidence.

@seonghobae
seonghobae marked this pull request as draft August 19, 2026 02:58

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32210025243

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@opencode-agent review
@cwl-noema-review review

Fresh re-review request: ContextualWisdomLab/.github#1136 has merged, fixing the central coverage-evidence bug (_install_trusted_uv() target-triple validation) that caused the prior REQUEST_CHANGES verdict on this PR. Please re-review exact current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053 — the underlying infrastructure blocker is now resolved on .github main. Do not transfer evidence from any prior head.


Generated by Claude Code

@seonghobae
seonghobae marked this pull request as ready for review August 19, 2026 12:12
@seonghobae
seonghobae marked this pull request as draft August 19, 2026 14:57

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

  • Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

  • Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

  • Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

  • Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

  • Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053.

  • Head SHA: fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053

  • Workflow run: 32261262389

  • Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

  • Result: FAIL
  • Test evidence: not proven passing
  • Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
  • Failure count: 2

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (2 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_logistic_dif_control_callback_safety.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@seonghobae
seonghobae marked this pull request as ready for review August 20, 2026 04:38
@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@opencode-agent review
@cwl-noema-review review

The draft is ready for review after exact-head validation. Re-review head fba82fb7f61660072ad470b2bed2d8dccd5ec053 against base fix/release-resync-current-review-971; do not transfer stale verdicts. Local logistic/MH purification control-boundary validation passed 20 tests, covering callback-free rejection, exact NumPy scalar normalization, native dispatch typing, bounds, and native-core/data preflight.

@seonghobae
seonghobae merged commit 3beb7c4 into fix/release-resync-current-review-971 Aug 20, 2026
10 checks passed
@seonghobae
seonghobae deleted the fix/logistic-dif-control-safety-958 branch August 20, 2026 04:38
seonghobae added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 25, 2026
* fix(release): resync CHANGELOG fragments after v0.8.0 cut

PRs merged after the v0.8.0 release-cut PR (#966) added new
docs/changelog.d fragments without re-running the renderer, and the
already-released release-0.8.0-cut.md fragment was left in place,
duplicating the 0.8.0 section under Unreleased. Delete the stale
fragment and re-render so render_changelog_fragments.py --check passes
again, unblocking the v0.8.0 release-tag dispatch.

* fix(release): re-render CHANGELOG fragments for v0.8.0 aggregate

Ten more PRs merged into main after this fix's original commit, each
adding docs/changelog.d fragments without re-running the renderer.
Re-run render_changelog_fragments.py --update so --check passes again
and the v0.8.0 release-tag dispatch is no longer blocked.

* fix(dif): harden logistic and purification controls (#959)

* test(dif): expose executable logistic controls

* fix(dif): normalize controls before data and Rust

* fix(dif): install hardened public DIF adapters

* docs(changelog): record logistic DIF control boundary

* docs(doctoring): trace logistic DIF control trust boundary

* fix(changelog): classify logistic DIF control boundary

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test(dif): preserve native zero-iteration and NumPy bool domains

* fix(dif): preserve native control compatibility

* test(dif): align regressions with native control domains

* test(dif): prove hardened package aliases on landing lane

* fix(dif): reject max_iter=0 before native discovery in logistic DIF wrappers

safe_logistic_dif and safe_logistic_dif_purified normalized max_iter with
minimum=0, admitting zero at the Python boundary even though the native
logistic_sweep (crates/mlsirm-core/src/dif.rs) rejects max_iter == 0 with
"max_iter must be >= 1", and the module's own doctoring already documented
max_iter as a positive usize control. A zero cap therefore cleared control
validation, materialized caller response/group arrays, and dispatched to
the compiled core before failing there instead of being rejected up front
(Devin AI review finding on PR #998).

Raise the minimum to 1 for both wrappers so the rejection happens before
data materialization or core discovery, matching the documented and
native domains. Updated the compatibility regressions accordingly: the
former zero-iteration dispatch proofs now use the true minimum (1), and
new regressions prove max_iter=0 is rejected before core discovery for
both logistic_dif and logistic_dif_purified.

* fix(release): resync changelog after current main

* fix(dif): make control installer idempotent

* feat(interaction-map): own residual factorization in Rust

* test(interaction-map): seal evidence and resource admission

* fix(interaction-map): seal evidence before Rust

* test(interaction-map): bound native resource requests

* fix(interaction-map): bound native workspaces

* fix(interaction-map): reject oversized axis controls before data

* test(interaction-map): reject maximal axis request before data

* docs(interaction-map): record bounded evidence admission

* test(interaction-map): require shape-consistent empty map

* test(interaction-map): require coherent empty rectangle

* fix(interaction-map): normalize empty complete-case rectangle

* docs(interaction-map): record empty complete-case contract

* feat(interaction-map): expose coverage and cell evidence

* test(interaction-map): reject NaN model expectations

* test(interaction-map): reject nonfinite expected evidence in Rust

* fix(interaction-map): reject NaN model expectations

* fix(interaction-map): require finite expected evidence

* docs(changelog): record finite interaction-map expectations

* test(interaction-map): preserve observed infinity rejection in Rust

* fix(interaction-map): reject infinite observed evidence in Rust

* docs(changelog): align interaction-map missingness parity

* chore: normalize composed public exports

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: opencode-agent[bot] <219766164+opencode-agent[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Harden logistic DIF controls before data/native discovery

2 participants