## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip controls agent work across service deployments.
> - A run can provision a remote sandbox before a process or invocation
event exists.
> - Each container previously treated its own missing process handle as
proof that the run was orphaned.
> - Overlapping deployments could therefore fail a run owned by another
container.
> - This pull request records and renews a controller lease before
provisioning.
> - A recovery worker must revoke an expired owner before it finalizes
the run.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Merged PR #13272 records startup adapter identity and restores explicit
user continuation. This PR adds controller ownership on top of current
master. Refs #7997 and #10442 for related replica and ownership
problems. Related #13138 addresses silence and detached local processes;
this change does not infer death from silence.
**What happened?**
During an overlapping hosted service deployment, a new container reaped
a legacy conversation run that another container was provisioning. The
run had no PID or adapter invocation yet.
**Expected behavior**
A live controller keeps its run. After controller loss, one recovery
worker takes cleanup authority and the old controller cannot dispatch
further work.
**Steps to reproduce**
Claim a legacy run in controller A. Start controller B against the same
database before A finishes provisioning. Run the startup reaper in B.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Observed on `663c44cb2b9c28336d38d0b4a6971f4f1964bce6` in a hosted
Railway deployment with a Daytona environment.
## What Changed
- Add nullable controller boot ID, lease deadline, and execution stage
columns. Claim ownership in the queued-to-running update.
- Renew ownership independently of run output. Abort and reject dispatch
if renewal fails.
- Serialize reaper revocation against renewal. Let unfinished recovery
claims expire after a restart.
- Restrict graceful shutdown to legacy runs owned by the current
controller.
- Hand ownership back to the existing native coordinator when runtime
selection becomes native.
- Add twelve database regressions and document the lease contract.
Update the task-drain regression to require controller expiry before
reaping.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/legacy-controller-lease.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain-admission-release.test.ts`: 14
passed after rebasing onto master (`f12b647ae`).
- Queue-interruption regressions in
`heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: 2 passed after preserving the new
cleanup promotion from #13275.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`: passed after
rebuilding runner TypeScript outputs for the updated master. Broad local
tests are omitted at the maintainer’s request; CI owns broad coverage.
- Latest-head CI passed on `f255e8e4d5ab2b24b12638a02434e6aa8a2285c5`:
[run
34658248569](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34658248569).
All test shards, browser suites, typecheck, build, canary, and security
checks passed. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
## Risks
- Additive, idempotent migration; historical rows retain the previous
recovery behavior.
- Database unavailability aborts new dispatch rather than permitting an
unfenced controller to continue.
- Lease expiry is permission to clean up, not evidence that remote
inference stopped. Follow-up PRs add persistent cleanup and automatic
continuation.
- Mixed-version deployment still includes old binaries whose reapers do
not understand controller leases.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, using reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, and test tools. The precise backend revision 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
- [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>
dbf5ea432d