[Pigbibi]

What changed

Add an inert TEST_ONLY P01 authorization/provenance validator and fake once-only
state model. Missing C0 proof, wrong producer, changed bindings, replay, expiry,
unknown results and latest-owner disable states deny. A consistent local result
is SIMULATION_ONLY and never authorizes execution or authentic private delivery.

Only the new module, its fake-only tests and the existing runtime rollout document
change. No workflow or runtime caller is added. Preserve strict operator==runSHA,
main trust, traffic/health/resourceVersion and single-compensation contracts.

How verified

• Full offline suite: 6856 passed, 6 skipped, 368 subtests passed.
• Focused reader/bootstrap/recovery and new contracts: 187 passed (78 new cases).
• Tests-first unavailable-module RED; two behavioral RED cases (nonce replay and
  fake clock integrity loss) recorded before fixes; focused/full GREEN afterward.
• Full Ruff, documentation (0 blocking, 1 existing advisory), deployment workflow
  offline contract, startup validation, CI-pinned dependency consistency,
  uv lock --offline --check and diff checks passed.
• Complete diff: three files, 477 additions; all added lines unchanged by the
  shared identifier checker; zero production callers and zero workflow changes.

Risk and remaining prerequisites

FakeTrust is explicitly unauthenticated. FakeStore is in-memory and models
one-process atomicity only; no distributed persistence or real journal adapter.
Opaque TEST_ONLY ciphertext is not a CMS validity claim. No real keys, credentials,
private channels, cloud transport, Secret/IAM/dispatch/deploy or paid service.
C0 appointments, authentic policy/identity/ownership and recipient/custody proof,
supported private channel/control store, separately approved version selection,
fresh runtime/budget evidence and new exact action authorities remain unresolved.
Historical recovery authority/deadlines remain disabled; no C0/C2 acceptance claim.
Keep Draft. No merge, labels, operational execution or deployment requested.

AI assistance

Authored and locally self-reviewed with Codex (gpt-6.1-sol). Independent exact-head
review remains pending through the repository's established Codex review route.

Publication check

Central checker publication-check/2.0-advisory, build 83d9d1130377, advisory: 2594 findings and 2469 matching lines. Complete tracked candidate tree and candidate artifacts checked. The 477 added lines separately have zero shared-identifier matches. Existing full-tree findings remain advisory; no credential is introduced. First 20 masked entries:

repo/.env.example:11: IB_GATEWAY_HOST=<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.env.example:19: TELEGRAM_TOKEN=<<HOST>>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:9: /.env.example @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:10: /.github/CODEOWNERS @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:11: /application/account_new_risk_gate_support.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:12: /application/execution_kernel_adapter.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:13: /application/execution_receipt_adapter.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:14: /application/execution_service.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:15: /application/ibkr_order_execution.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:16: /application/paper_execution_admission.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:17: /application/paper_execution_command_consumer.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:18: /application/portfolio_risk_diagnostics.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:19: /application/relative_risk_preview.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:20: /application/tqqq_offline_risk.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:21: /runtime_execution_policy.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:22: /scripts/deploy_notification_only.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:23: /scripts/deploy_pilot_no_traffic.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:24: /scripts/execution_report_heartbeat.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:25: /scripts/ibkr_deployment_audit.py @<PROJECT_ID>
repo/.github/CODEOWNERS:26: /scripts/summarize_execution_ledger_cloud.py @<PROJECT_ID>

[Pigbibi]

@codex review

Please review exact head 890f371 of this inert,
fake-only candidate through the established repository review route. Focus on
fail-closed C0 gaps, source/envelope/recipient bindings, replay/deadlines and the
explicit lack of authentic authority or production wiring. Local full offline
results: 6856 passed, 6 skipped, 368 subtests passed; focused results: 187 passed.
Keep Draft. No operational approval, merge, label, dispatch or deployment requested.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary: ✅ Completed

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-06T23:10:41.211147Z	890f371	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Bravo.

Reviewed commit: 890f371102

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".