Skip to content

Historical field note

This record preserves prior investigation or planning evidence. It is not a current operating contract; use the numbered book and current runbooks for instructions.

Disposition: low-confidence dream finding slack (dreamrepair:394db89d377ef58abf97ace7d54d728c) — not actionable

Finding: a low-confidence dream-repair failure_pattern, kind failure_pattern, scope project, project mac, provider label slack, fingerprint dreamrepair:394db89d377ef58abf97ace7d54d728c, confidence low (overall_confidence_score = 0.35, evidence_count = 1), with empty skills, tools, and repo_areas. Evidence source: this disposition consumes the ground-truth investigation docs/archive/field-notes/investigation-dreamrepair-394db89d-slack.md produced by the dependency investigation node (parent audit "Investigate low-confidence dream finding: slack"). That investigation walked the finding's provenance, its sole supporting record, and 15 generations of self-referential lineage to the root audit. Dispositioned by: fleet worker (adjudication/disposition only; no production code, test, skill, config, or deploy edits).

Disposition: CLOSE — NOT ACTIONABLE (self-referential single-record artifact)

Close the finding as not actionable as a defect of any slack provider, skill, or tool. The investigation established that the finding is the deterministic output of the dream/nap loop acting on a single failed task's own outcome-closure memory: there is no reproducible slack-provider failure, no error signature, and no named skill/tool/repo_area to repair. The correct handling is to record this disposition as investigation evidence and make no change to skills, tools, config, or source.

Acceptance-criteria evaluation

  • (1) Is the failure_pattern real and recurring, or a single low-confidence artifact? A single low-confidence artifact. Per the investigation, support is one record and the 0.35 score is the classifier's single-record structural floor for support < 2 (the low tier keyed on slack as a recognized provider token in src/mac/dream_cycle_classifier.py), not a corroborated fault. The apparent recurrence is a lineage 15 generations deep in which each generation's only evidence is the previous generation's own deployment_learning outcome memory — zero net-new independent signal — and every generation carries a DISTINCT fingerprint, so fingerprint dedup never suppresses the chain.

  • (2) Is the slack provider association signal or noise, given no skills/tools/repo-areas were flagged? Noise (incidental). Per the investigation, the slack label comes from \bslack\b matching the word "slack" in the source task's own title ("Investigate low-confidence dream finding: slack"), not from any slack transport, gateway, or persona-binding failure. With no skill, tool, or repo_area co-flagged, nothing localizes a slack-surface defect. The investigation's read-only scan found a messaging slack binding in the Hermes gateway surface, but the finding points at none of it and there is no reproducer, trace, or failing test against it.

  • (3) Smallest repair vs. follow-up plan. Neither is warranted as a slack product fix, because there is no reproducible slack defect to repair. The investigation confirms the sole supporting record carries an empty error signature and no slack-specific detail, so there is nothing to reproduce. The genuinely actionable issue is upstream in the dream-repair pipeline, not in any slack surface (see "Durable, non-slack takeaway" below); it is recorded as a scoped follow-up consideration and explicitly not implemented here per the investigation-only directive.

Why the sole evidence is not a defect

Per the investigation's ground truth, the finding's only supporting record is mem_6d53574e86a548c2a0658f33c43641cb (record_type = deployment_learning:mac, authored by mac-task-executor): outcome = "failure", evidence_type = "investigation", error_signature = "" (empty), repository = "", and signals = {returncode: 1, tests: null, checks_pass: null, files_changed: null, pushed: null}, for task_id = task_0836b4b1c802465a93e3bd6a1affcfc0. This is the executor's auto-emitted closure record for the source task — not an observation of a broken slack integration.

The source task task_0836b4b1c802465a93e3bd6a1affcfc0 was state = failed, failure_class = environment, failing at sandbox startup (executor_failed / non_retryable_attempt_failure); its salvage.recorded_lessons is exactly [mem_6d53574e...]. It never exercised any slack path. The minting dream:failure_pattern record mem_8e0638d1f9774af3b25ca53f6aeaa727 (authored by nap-ticker) has a single evidence pointer to mem_6d53574e... and its sole observations entry is the literal string "[failure] Investigate low-confidence dream finding: slack (investigation)" — i.e. the provider label is derived from the prior task's title, not a diagnosed fault. The root audit task_027ac881b6914677b9bf3aa704d3cc91 already reached the same NOT-ACTIONABLE conclusion and failed only on the repository push/contract gate, not on the substance of its audit.

Evidence gap — what would raise confidence

This disposition is a close, not a permanent verdict. Stated plainly, the gap is: one supporting record; confidence 0.35; the record is a failed task's own failure-outcome closure memory (net-new independent signal is zero); an empty error signature with no slack-specific detail; an environment failure at sandbox startup rather than a slack failure; a generic slack label derived from task-title wording with no named skill, tool, or repo_area; and no independent corroboration across the 15-generation lineage. Reopen the slack track only if independent, reproducible evidence appears that the slack/chat-gateway/persona surface actually misbehaves — concretely, any of:

  • A failing contract test or reproducer pinning a concrete defect in a slack transport, chat-gateway runtime, or persona binding, reproducible via scripts/run-contract-tests.sh.
  • A concrete defect location replacing the incidental slack provider label — an actual failing module/tool/repo_area, not task-title wording — with a non-empty error signature or stack trace.
  • Independent corroboration raising evidence_count to >= 2 from records that are not the same lineage's own outcome-closure snapshots, so confidence can reach medium/high on its own merits.

Durable, non-slack takeaway (out of scope here)

The real generic issue is a provenance/dedup gap in the dream-repair pipeline, not a slack defect: the loop treats a failed task's own outcome-closure memory as fresh failure evidence, and each recurrence is emitted under a distinct fingerprint so fingerprint dedup cannot suppress the chain. A durable improvement belongs to the classifier/consolidator — e.g. do not seed a failure_pattern from a source task's own deployment_learning closure memory when its error_signature is empty and its failure_class = environment, and collapse self-referential candidate lineages so a chain of environment failures cannot manufacture apparent recurrence. This is recorded as a scoped follow-up consideration only and is explicitly not implemented here, per the investigation-only directive.

Verification

Re-read the ground-truth investigation docs/archive/field-notes/investigation-dreamrepair-394db89d-slack.md in the task-owned worktree and confirmed its cited fields, records, lineage, and NOT-ACTIONABLE verdict are consistent with this disposition. Confirmed the slack provider token and the single-record low/0.35 confidence floor are recognized by src/mac/dream_cycle_classifier.py. No src/, tests/, skills/, .mac/, or deploy/ file was modified by this disposition; the only new artifact is this field note and the regenerated documentation inventory. Fleet-generic: no secrets, hostnames, personal paths, or operator identities are recorded.