## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The native runtime records completion assessments and task
decisions.
> - An application update can change the assessment policy version.
> - The previous code treated that version change as a reason for human
review.
> - An upgrade alone does not give the user a new decision to make.
> - This change keeps existing decisions and withdraws obsolete upgrade
review cards.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A rules version change moved unfinished tasks into review and created a
card that said, "Review the superseding native policy assessment." The
task did not need new work or a human decision.
**Expected behavior**
New runs use the current rules. An upgrade leaves existing task
decisions alone. The saved policy version remains available in the audit
history.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save a native run assessment and a task decision.
2. Change the native status policy version.
3. Run finalization reconciliation without new task evidence.
4. The previous code created a review card. The corrected code keeps the
saved assessment and decision.
Related context: #13038 changed the native policy version. Searches
found no duplicate fix for upgrade-only completion reviews.
## What Changed
- Remove policy-version mismatch as a reconciliation trigger.
- Withdraw pending cards only when their source decision, effect ledger,
creator, key, and prompt match the old upgrade-only review.
- Restore the previous status only while that decision and status
version remain current and no other review gate is pending.
- Preserve answered cards, real review requests, later task changes, and
historical assessments and decisions.
- Record cleanup activity and retire any corresponding chat review
actions.
- Isolate cleanup failures so one old card cannot block other cleanup or
normal finalization.
- Update the status conformance fixture, regression tests, and
architecture documentation.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts` (23 tests,
including the 53-fixture status corpus).
- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Passed: `git diff --check`.
- Passed: `pnpm build`.
- Passed: fresh Greptile review at 5/5 on `d24e5ecaf`, with no open
review threads.
- Passed: the 23 focused tests in the isolated full-suite environment.
- Local `pnpm test:run`: the server group finished with 10,638 passed
and one missing-fixture failure. Built the required
`fake-codex-app-server` fixture and reran the entire affected native
session-resume suite: 37/37 passed. The initial full command exited on
that server-group failure, so remaining groups are covered by CI.
- Passed: the workspace-runtime-exposure suite (25 tests, 3 platform
skips).
- Passed: all CI gates, including every test shard, browser tests,
typecheck, and build. The server shard passed on one retry after an
unrelated host-port conflict in the unchanged workspace-exposure tests.
- Cleanup tests cover repeat runs, real reviews, answered cards, later
statuses, newer decision identity, status changes back to review, other
pending requests, run scope, cleanup failures, retry, and live
publication failures.
## Risks
- Cleanup changes stored task state. It checks the exact obsolete
decision and status version under database locks before restoring
status.
- Pending approvals, interactions, and execution stages prevent
restoration out of review.
- The cleanup handles at most 100 matching cards per reconciliation
pass. It does not rewrite old decisions or accept an agent's completion
claim.
- New evidence and explicit task changes still use the existing
reconciliation paths. This change does not reevaluate old work merely
because Paperclip was updated.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment identifier and context window
are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection,
code editing, shell execution, and automated tests.
## 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
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
a12bbd1824