Both measured 2026-08-26 by peer devices, and the second one measured on me:
the operator had to point at an event id before I read a report that had been
addressed to me for two hours. The mailbox was working correctly the whole time.
§7.12 is the structural one. Candidates are drawn with status="open", so an
event carrying a TERMINAL status is not a mailbox candidate at all, whoever it
is addressed to. A task.reply written to a named device to share a finding is
therefore delivered to nobody, ever — and neither is any event.ack. So the most
natural inter-device message, "here is something you should know", is exactly
the shape that gets no delivery. Two things that do work: address it as a
directed status="open" ask (correct when a response is actually wanted), or
accept it as pull-only and pair it with a drawer, which the peer's search will
surface. A terminal report plus an expectation of attention does not.
§7.11 is the peer's finding, and it explains the other half of why that report
sat unread: delivery is deliverAs "steer" with deliberately no triggerTurn, and
the poll fires on agent_settled — i.e. when the agent is IDLE, with no inference
running. The text is queued for the next turn, so the human is the trigger.
Measured on another device: a delivery landed at ~20:50Z and sat visibly
unreacted-to until the operator asked "do I have to nudge you?". Not a defect;
the no-triggerTurn decision was deliberate and stands. But the delivered text
explains how to CLOSE an ask and never says when it will be SEEN, so the one
reader who needs that fact — the human watching the window — is the one not
told. Recorded with the three fixes that do not wake a model, as decision 8.
§7.4 is upgraded from inferred to measured, on two devices independently, by a
two-arm control: a to_agent='*' event with status='open' survives the raw
candidate filter and therefore reaches the exclusion branch, which no previously
written broadcast (all non-open) ever did. Raw query returned it, derived owed
set did not, delivery named only the directed arm. Two arms differing only in
to_agent is what makes it evidence rather than an absence.
And it carries a correction of my own record, in place and dated: I had filed
that this branch COULD NOT be exercised, because every broadcast in the log is
status='ready' and the protocol forbids writing an open one. Wrong in an
instructive way — the protocol forbids it as PRODUCTION TRAFFIC, which does not
forbid planting one as a labelled, self-closed control. Where a rule appears to
block a measurement, check whether it blocks the use or the test.
joakimp
982b001001