[Pigbibi]

AI assistance

Native Claude implemented and accepted the frontend candidate and correction (model not recorded in the handoff). Codex (GPT-6; more specific runtime model unavailable) performed mechanical publication, main synchronization and offline verification. Codex added no frontend logic.

What changed

Identify fixture data across each Desk page and the surrounding shell. Mixed live and fixture reads show a localized partial-mock chip, with explicit labels for fixture-backed logs, alert delivery and strategy catalogs. The global ribbon remains included when page endpoints become live. Regenerate the existing asset map from the accepted sources.

How verified

• The three uncommitted handoff files matched the supplied SHA-256 inventory before commit and after main synchronization. The original 12-file candidate scope and the other nine candidate blobs are preserved.
• Merge current main normally with no conflicts; confirm main ancestry and unchanged DESK_SOURCES.
• Focused desk mock, shell and format validations PASS; 480 zh-CN/en keys match, including unknown-versus-zero assertions.
• Frontend build, asset synchronization, complete test:operations chain, asset validation and deploy-safety validation PASS. Generated assets reproduce exactly; working tree is clean.
• Display-name/config checks, runtime-settings validation, Python unittest discovery and documentation style check PASS. Python: 1172 tests, 12 skipped (2 require jsonschema; 10 require an external local producer artifact).
• Reuse native Claude's recorded fail-before shell-ribbon regression evidence; the same adverse assertions pass after synchronization. No source was reverted to manufacture a failure.
• Remote CI and official exact-head review remain separate from local checks.

Why

A live page endpoint must not hide the fixture label while the shell or other visible page content still uses fixtures. Users need to distinguish mixed-source data before interpreting the page.

Risk

Low-risk frontend labeling, tests and generated assets only. No Worker/backend, source-mode flips, pin changes or workflow changes in the feature delta. Read the workflow side-effect audit and verified deployment/release entry points remain manual-only; PR-triggered bundle jobs only validate. No deploy, upload, activation, rollback, Secrets, IAM or trading-switch operation. Parent and the established review-and-merge bot own subsequent disposition. Map maintenance is still required when page/shell endpoints change. Runtime adoption and production visual acceptance remain unverified.

Publication check

Central checker: publication-check/2.0-advisory, build 83d9d1130377, --git ., advisory exit 0; 4123 total findings across 4120 matching lines. Findings retained without new exemptions. This count is not a credential classification or a clean-tree claim. Adapter scope and handoff hashes are unchanged. First 20 entries below are shared-masker output.

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

[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 2026-11-09T20:26:52.145227Z	d2625cf	Draft marked ready
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-09T20:28:36.082023Z	d2625cf	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.