[Pigbibi]

AI assistance

OpenAI Codex; host model configuration: gpt-6.1-sol.

What changed

Reject Cloud Run service names that cannot satisfy the selected cand-{sha8}
tag contract before generating or forwarding a runtime inventory. The combined
budget is 46 characters, including a 13-character tag, so service names must fit
33 characters. Both TAG_IMPOSSIBLE and TAG_TIGHT names refuse generation; names
are never automatically shortened or renamed. Check generated defaults,
overrides, and every retained inventory name alias. Add explicit workflow failure
reporting, bilingual operating guidance, and regression coverage.

How verified

• Eight regression tests pass; the final tests fail against the unmodified base
  (20 adverse subtest failures), including 48-character refusal, redacted errors,
  retained aliases, two CLI processes and actual workflow build-step execution.
• Full Python suite: 1,135 tests pass, 10 skipped (Python 3.13).
• Full CI JavaScript validation step plus offline reconciliation checks pass on
  Node 22.23.4. QRS946 bundle-only checks are skipped for unchanged scope, as in CI.
  The initial Node 24 attempt stopped on a removed CLI flag; no gate was changed.
• Actionlint, generated configuration/display checks, runtime target validation,
  whitespace, documentation checks (zero blocking), and Python package build pass.
• Self-review: redaction, fail-closed behavior and cross-process refusal verified;
  stale state is N/A because validation is synchronous and stateless.

Why

Owner decision t1255s7222 selects Option B. A 48-character service cannot fit any
nonempty tag. QRS previously allowed such a name to reach published inventory.
The concurrently assigned QPK helper had no stable delivered pin available when
integration was assessed, so this change uses the authorized small local module.
Existing positive tests use short fake names without weakening their assertions.

Risk

Risk tier: high (runtime builder and manual workflow paths). This changes offline
naming acceptance only. It intentionally refuses tighter names under this fixed
13-character contract, including retained inventory entries. Existing service
identities need separately approved migration. No merge, labels, deployment,
traffic, IAM, secrets, variables, live inventory mutation or service rename.
Runtime adoption and production switch states are not established by these tests.

Publication check

Central checker: publication-check/2.0-advisory (build 83d9d1130377), advisory exit 0. Total matches: 3934; matching lines: 3931; flagged files: 513. The complete tracked candidate tree was scanned. Counts are advisory under owner rule pt1114u; no credential is added by this patch. First 20 matches below use the shared masked text.

.github/CODEOWNERS:4: /.github/CODEOWNERS @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:5: /.github/workflows/ @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:6: /actions/publish-runtime-execution-evidence/ @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:7: /python/scripts/check_credential_maintenance_read.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:8: /python/scripts/credential_maintenance_notify.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:9: /python/scripts/deployment_bundle_contract.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:10: /python/scripts/deterministic_risk_gate.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:11: /python/scripts/execution_evidence_projection.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:12: /python/scripts/forward_observation_risk_control.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:13: /python/scripts/long_horizon_risk_composer.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:14: /python/scripts/long_horizon_risk_composer_v2.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:15: /python/scripts/long_horizon_risk_observation_ingress.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:16: /python/scripts/long_horizon_risk_observation_ingress_v2.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:17: /python/scripts/paper_risk_admission_receipt.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:18: /schemas/qsl-deployment-bundle.v1.schema.json @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:19: /schemas/qsl-forward-observation-risk-control.v1.schema.json @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:20: /schemas/qsl-reconcile-only-risk-control.v1.schema.json @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:21: /scripts/provision_binance_recovery_credentials.sh @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:22: /scripts/provision_soxl_v7_review_credential.py @<PROJECT_ID>
.github/CODEOWNERS:23: /web/strategy-switch-console/application/console_api/strategy_execution.js @<PROJECT_ID>

[Pigbibi]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

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

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-05T20:09:01.440202Z	219773e	Draft marked ready

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. Another round soon, please!

Reviewed commit: f719349c39

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".