## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Direct Runner evals retain evidence across model configurations.
> - Evalbook already has a grid and a read-only Runner Lab chat viewer.
> - Public projection stripped the view and selected a second plain
result page.
> - This change uses the existing viewer for public and private results.
> - The data access differs, but the presentation does not.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12931, #12945. Related open runtime-contract PR #11634 does not
contain this report-only change.
**What happened?**
The public direct-eval campaign opened plain result pages. The
access-controlled artifact used the chat viewer. Users could not follow
the same recorded interaction from the published grid.
**Expected behavior**
Every newly generated Runner Evalbook opens the existing chat viewer.
The grid and durable run history remain. Public evidence has explicit
redactions.
**Steps to reproduce**
Open campaign gha-34062394019-1 from the direct-eval history. Click a
result, then compare its plain page with the corresponding Actions
artifact.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced at 83987210d6.
**Deployment mode**
Static GitHub Actions artifacts and S3/CloudFront publication.
Companion site-theme renderer:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/19. This removes the
Python light theme and links the same built stylesheet.
## What Changed
- Add a closed public chat projection. Require mock isolation evidence
before publishing recorded text. Scrub private references and withhold
tool payloads, reasoning and provider state.
- Validate public HTML against the exact trusted viewer shell and asset
bytes. Validate the public DTO and local links. Keep CSP restrictions on
outbound requests and forms.
- Make the workflow render both data projections with the canonical
viewer. Pass a viewer-only artifact to the trusted publisher. Reject an
old renderer pin before paid execution.
- Fix report-only start position, missing-state inspector, read-only
controls and redaction labels. Tool evidence links select and highlight
the Evidence tab even when reopened. Runner execution and the full-stack
E2E workflow are unchanged.
- Add a no-model report refresh command. Preserve original campaign
identity, measurements and immutable history; label report revisions.
- Document the single presentation and public/private evidence boundary.
- Use one Runner Lab stylesheet and local fonts for the grid, Latest,
test design, inventory, server gate and S3 history index. Keep static
styles scoped away from live chat.
- Emit exact published report/history URLs to the Actions summary and
job outputs only after successful upload. Set the deployment link from
that output.
- Switch public Eval and Evidence panes without rendering both at once.
- Add all-run history with like-for-like pass-rate and cost timelines,
regression/recovery lists, exact commit links, source refs and Actions
links.
- Record all-attempt costs including retries. Keep provider list cost
separate from estimates. Label missing coverage and historical
final-only costs.
- Retain all run records beyond 200, backfill a separate derived
analytics projection, and exclude report refreshes from measurements.
## Verification
- Focused report/publishing/projection/workflow/adapter tests: 29
passed.
- Workflow Evalbook adapter tests: three passed.
- Viewer unit tests: eight passed; Vite viewer build passed.
- Companion renderer tests: 59 total, 57 passed, two inventory tests
skipped because the expected sibling checkout is absent.
- Re-rendered all 375 retained attempts from the completed campaign and
validated the public bundle. Zero new model calls; 356/358 selected
cells still pass.
- Browser walkthrough: grid to failed chat; prompt, named tool calls,
correct blocked status, visible assertions, no loading spinner or
composer. Public payload redactions are explicit.
- Full typecheck and build passed locally. test:run ended with 17 failed
files and 19 failed tests in unrelated server/worktree areas (3772 tests
passed). Latest-head CI is the final merge gate. The browser sources
also typecheck with a temporary TypeScript-7-compatible path
configuration; the checked-in browser config still uses removed baseUrl
options and is unchanged here.
- Real Chromium verification passed for passing, failing and
missing-recording attempts in both the full and public bundles. It
checks tool expansion, navigation, reload, read-only controls, narrow
viewport visibility and the public no-network boundary. Future
publications run it automatically.
- Fresh live proof: three gpt-5.4-mini native Codex cases passed on the
first attempt (get-task-context, create-child-task,
workflow-context-document-progress); estimated total $0.00632625.
Generated the full canonical report and verified all three file://
pages, all seven DevTools tabs, and evidence cross-links in Chromium.
Private screenshots remain local.
- Follow-up 99697c2c5: viewer build, eight unit tests, browser token
gate and browser-source typecheck (existing TS7 configuration
workaround) passed. Added repeated tool-to-evidence navigation to the
publication browser gate.
- Site-theme follow-up: 26 publishing/security tests, 59 Python tests
(57 passed, two existing skips), eight viewer unit tests and the viewer
build passed. Chromium verified shared colors and
grid/test-design/Latest navigation.
- Re-rendered all 375 retained attempts with the shared site theme,
without new provider calls.
- Successful hosted publication: [refreshed
Evalbook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/campaigns/gha-34062394019-1-report-site-theme-v3/index.html)
and [themed
history](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/index.html).
Real browser verified grid → test design → chat → All results and
history → run.
- Full maintained live suite completed on AWS: [Actions run
34074939112](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34074939112),
Paperclip 856813ba3a, evals
34e1846c06a39e641182dadce5de7ea739f657f1. All 358 cells across 11
configurations ran; 355 passed (99.2%), two behavior failures and one
infrastructure failure. Nine configurations are entirely green. All 360
retained attempts were rendered using the new design and published as an
immutable, zero-provider-call report refresh: [full
Evalbook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/campaigns/gha-34074939112-1-report-history-v1/index.html).
The trusted master workflow ran the models; this PR's viewer rendered
their results afterward.
- Remaining live failures: native Codex mini did not emit the expected
discovery event for lazy-unauthorized-undisclosed (no mutation
occurred); GLM 5.3 scheduled a wake before approval in
workflow-governed-wait; GLM 5.3 timed out on create-task-document on
both attempts. No scoring rules were relaxed.
- Retry-inclusive recorded estimated model cost is at least $7.067692,
with usage for 357/360 attempts. Provider-reported list cost is a
separate alternative (at least $14.002806), not an additive cost.
Missing usage is unknown, not zero; AWS compute is excluded.
- [Production
history](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/index.html)
now contains nine model runs and two separately labeled report
refreshes. Matching full-suite comparison reports three newly failing
cells and two recoveries versus the previous run. This is observed
run-to-run variation, not proof of a deterministic code regression. Live
HTTP checks verify the newest report link, shared theme, exact source
SHAs and cost analytics.
- The new full report passed Chromium checks for passing, failing and
missing-recording chat pages, tool-to-Evidence links, grid/design/Latest
navigation, reload, read-only controls and narrow layouts. The Mac was
locked during final hosted verification; the new hosted history was
checked by HTTP and generated-page browser checks, not a fresh
interactive desktop walkthrough.
- History follow-up: 31 publishing/security/metrics tests pass. Viewer
build passes. Chromium checks desktop and narrow history pages with no
document-level horizontal overflow.
### Visual verification
Generated from the scrubbed completed campaign; no private provider
identities or raw tool payloads are included. Full private pages were
also browser-tested, but their private metadata is not published as
screenshots.
Latest shared-theme proof:
## Risks
- Public chat text is newly visible, but only for the isolated mock
boundary. The producer excludes raw payloads and the publisher fails
closed on unknown fields, secrets, shell changes and asset
substitutions.
- Requires the companion canonical renderer revision and an updated
RUNNER_PROTOCOL_EVALS_SHA after merge. Old pins fail before paid
execution.
- Existing published campaigns remain immutable. A report refresh is a
separate history entry, not a new model qualification.
- Successfully published the immutable site-theme refresh with the
configured report-bucket SSO profile. Original run records and
qualification pointers are preserved.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with reasoning, shell and browser
tools. Exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed
in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on
cad99dbf04
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
on cad99dbf04
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta
