[ACP-HARDEN-130] execution-result/v1を導入しstatus非変換を保証する

[ootakazuhiko]

Parent: #3655
Depends on: ACP-HARDEN-110
Blocks: ACP-HARDEN-210, ACP-HARDEN-230, ACP-HARDEN-240
Codex lane: contracts/execution-result-v1

背景

現在のartifact群には複数の実行status語彙がある。

• formal summary: ok, failed, skipped, missing, unknown
• loop summary: pass, fail, warn, not-run
• claim projection: tested, model-checked, proved, runtime-mitigated, waived, unresolved

実行結果とclaimへの評価projectionが混在すると、unsupportedやtool-errorがfailへ、skipがpassへ、testedがprovedへ誤変換される危険がある。Private Matchではpass, fail, skip, unsupported, timeout, tool-errorを完全に保持することで、未実施・未対応・失敗を区別した。

目的

runner共通のexecution-result/v1を導入し、実行outcomeとclaim projectionを二層に分離する。

Codex CLI preflight

• Assurance Model
• Contract Catalog
• formal-summary v1/v2
• verify-lite／loop／conformance／security／benchmark summaries
• claim-evidence-manifest／assurance-summary／policy input consumers
• schema migration／dual-writeの既存方針
• Context Pack／Boundary Map

Proposed contract

推奨Schema:

schema/execution-result-v1.schema.json

最低限:

schemaVersion: execution-result/v1
resultId
producer
subject
status:
  pass
  fail
  skip
  unsupported
  timeout
  tool-error
ran
required
reason
startedAt
completedAt
tool:
  id
  version
  source
inputDigests
outputDigest
configuration
resourceLimits
assumptions
limitations
artifactStatus:
  real
  synthetic
  test-only

不変条件

• ran=falseでpass|fail|timeout|tool-errorは禁止。
• skipは未実行、unsupportedは能力非対応、timeoutは実行開始後期限超過、tool-errorはtool／environment failure。
• statusの相互変換は禁止。
• required=falseであってもstatusを変更しない。
• synthetic／test-only resultはreal claimの充足に使用しない。
• claim projectionは別consumerがEvidence kind／scope／assumptionを評価して生成し、execution statusを書き換えない。

実装タスク

• 主要runner／summaryのstatus inventoryとmapping riskを作成する。
• execution-result/v1 Schema、fixtures、validator、Contract Catalog entryを追加する。
• 既存artifactからのadapterまたはdual-write previewを実装する。
• formal、conformance、loop、security、benchmarkの代表producerで同contractを生成または参照する。
• claim-evidence-manifestがexecution resultをEvidenceとして参照し、claim statusと混同しないようにする。
• unsupported, timeout, tool-errorを既存failed|unknownへcollapseしない。
• tool未導入、network禁止、timeout、process error、assertion failureを別fixtureで固定する。
• status migration compatibility、dual-read／dual-write期間、major version policyをADRへ記録する。
• PR／release summaryでexecution outcomeとclaim projectionを別列・別sectionで表示する。

Acceptance criteria

• 6 statusすべてのpositive fixtureがある。
• 全status変換negative matrixがあり、違法変換を検出する。
• skip, unsupported, timeout, tool-errorがpassまたはfailへ変換されない。
• tested, model-checked, provedはexecution statusとして生成されない。
• synthetic／test-only resultでreal gateを満たせない。
• FormalAgent hardening後の未実行結果を正確に表現できる。
• 既存artifact consumerの互換性境界とrollbackが文書化される。

Validation

• Schema self-validation
• status cross-field tests
• producer adapter tests
• aggregation／policy negative tests
• deterministic fixtures
• pnpm -s run check:schemas
• pnpm -s run check:doc-consistency
• pnpm -s run verify:lite

非目標

• 既存全Schemaの一括破壊的置換
• 新しいassurance levelの追加
• unavailable toolの自動installation
• policy enforcementの即時mandatory化

Stop condition

• Draft PR
• migration ADRとcompatibility tests
• exact-head CI success
• unresolved review threads 0
• worktree clean

[ootakazuhiko]

Main-health precondition blockers

ACP-HARDEN-130 remains intentionally unstarted. The GitHub-authority preflight on current main c5da6115638fdbfeebbc458b39fa6916db66afb0 found unrelated but enforcing push failures that would make #3658 acceptance ambiguous:

1. [MAIN-HEALTH-SEC-002] Eliminate current high dependency vulnerabilities and restore enforced security gates #3671 [MAIN-HEALTH-SEC-002] — current dependency audits report high=19, critical=0; the production DoD path reports high=12 > 8. This blocks SBOM, Security Analysis Dependency Audit, and Quality Gates.
2. [MAIN-HEALTH-CI-003] Restore Container Security after Podman/crun runtime incompatibility #3672 [MAIN-HEALTH-CI-003] — Container Security fails on hosted Ubuntu 24.04 while Podman invokes crun with unknown version specified before the Dockerfile command starts.

No #3658 branch, worktree, or PR has been created. Resume #3658 only after both recovery Issues are merged and a fresh main-health preflight confirms:

• SBOM enforced dependency audit success;
• Security Analysis Dependency Audit success;
• Quality Gates DoD success;
• Container Security build/export/Trivy/SARIF success;
• Full CI success or every remaining non-success result is explicitly proved unrelated and advisory;
• current main authority state is stable.

This is a temporary main-health prerequisite and does not change the ACP-HARDEN dependency graph.

[ootakazuhiko]

Parallel review supplement — execution lifecycle before status mapping (2026-09-07)

Review origin: #3675. This is guidance for this Issue's future implementation, not a change to active #3672 / PR #3674, and does not remove the recovery blockers recorded above.

The proposed invariant forbids ran=false with tool-error, while the scope also requires truthful representation of missing tools, process errors and network prohibition. Before freezing the Schema, explicitly define what ran measures: an orchestration attempt, a successfully started tool process, or an actual target check. Those are different facts. A failed spawn must not require inventing ran=true, an execution start time, an exit code or a duration for a process that never started.

Suggested design decision for the migration ADR:

• Preserve the six proposed execution statuses. Document attempt/launch/check lifecycle separately, or use a separate producer/invocation-error envelope when no execution result can honestly be emitted under the chosen ran definition.
• Keep unavailable capability, executable missing, spawn denied, network prohibited before launch, timeout after launch, assertion failure, malformed tool output and orchestration cancellation as distinct observed reasons.
• Do not automatically map cancellation to timeout/tool-error, or generic legacy failed to assertion fail. An unmappable legacy record remains migration-unresolved outside the execution status enum.
• Define optional/unobserved tool version, input/output digest and timestamps without fabricating placeholders. A passing probe is not a passing target test.

Acceptance additions to consider within the existing scope: missing executable and spawn-EACCES fixtures before process start; timeout after start; signal/cancellation with no authoritative cause; malformed version output; and one end-to-end producer → summary → claim consumer test proving no status or execution fact is invented. The new #3677 acceptance layer must reference these results rather than redefine them.

This comment is an AI-assisted design review, not a human approval, waiver, or permission to start #3658 before its current preconditions.