@tacuchi/agent-workflow-cli 25.8.0 → 26.0.0

package/dist/domain/flow/answer.js

@@ -15,12 +15,36 @@
  * directive with `ok: true` — with `ok: false` the host never calls `renderHuman`
  * and the person would never see the boundary they have to answer over.
  */
+import { resolve } from "node:path";
 import { parseSemanticArtifacts } from "../../application/semantic-operation/protocol.js";
 import { COMPLETENESS_VALUES } from "../capability/descriptor.js";
-import { isEffectClass } from "../capability/effects.js";
+import { EFFECT_CLASSES, isEffectClass } from "../capability/effects.js";
 import { CAPABILITY_OUTCOMES, } from "../capability/protocol.js";
-import { proposalContractOf, } from "./authority.js";
+import { effectsOf, proposalContractOf, } from "./authority.js";
+import { BATCH_REVIEW_CONTRACT, isBatchReview } from "./batch-review.js";
 import { STOP_LABEL, isFlowControl } from "./directive.js";
+/** Preserve the first code/message while publishing every independent defect. */
+function collected(entries) {
+    const first = entries[0];
+    if (first === undefined)
+        throw new Error("no hay violaciones para entregar");
+    return {
+        ...first.failure,
+        violations: entries.map((entry) => entry.violation),
+    };
+}
+function violation(failure, field, expected, received) {
+    return {
+        failure,
+        violation: {
+            code: failure.code,
+            field,
+            expected,
+            received: Array.isArray(received) ? "lista" : received === null ? "null" : typeof received,
+            message: failure.message,
+        },
+    };
+}
 /**
  * Which rejections COUNT as an attempt at the boundary, and which never reached
  * it.
@@ -44,14 +68,11 @@ import { STOP_LABEL, isFlowControl } from "./directive.js";
  *   raises). At an execution boundary the decision IS the result and at an
  *   authoring one it IS the bytes: with neither there, there is nothing to judge,
  *   and charging for it charges for the envelope.
- * - `evaluated` — the decision arrived and did not resolve the gap. A signal
- *   outside the declared vocabulary, a label that is not one of the emitted
- *   alternatives, an approval over other effects or none at all, a result about a
- *   different invocation, an execution that did not complete or left its effect
- *   half-applied, a scope naming sources the workspace or the plan does not, a
- *   proposal reaching past what its row declares — and an answer that declares
- *   nothing at all, which is the feigned convergence the chassis degrades and
- *   exactly what the cap is for.
+ * - `evaluated` — the decision arrived and did not resolve the gap. An execution
+ *   that did not complete or left its effect half-applied, a scope naming sources
+ *   the workspace or the plan does not, a proposal reaching past what its row
+ *   declares, or an answer that declares nothing at all. Unknown literals,
+ *   malformed proofs, copied digests and invocations are envelope errors.
  * - `control` — a real answer that deliberately applies nothing, or the same
  *   answer arriving twice. Pausing to compact, stopping the run, and a resend are
  *   all decisions somebody made on purpose; charging them would make the flow
@@ -75,6 +96,7 @@ export const FLOW_ANSWER_REJECTIONS = {
     FLOW_ANSWER_MISSING: "envelope",
     FLOW_ANSWER_INVALID: "envelope",
     FLOW_ANSWER_STALE: "envelope",
+    WORKSPACE_MISMATCH: "envelope",
     FLOW_ANSWER_NOT_EXPECTED: "envelope",
     FLOW_RESULT_INVALID: "envelope",
     FLOW_ARTIFACTS_MISSING: "envelope",
@@ -96,74 +118,130 @@ export const FLOW_ANSWER_REJECTIONS = {
     // action, so charging the envelope would punish choosing the wrong verb.
     FLOW_INTERNAL_ACTION_EXTERNAL_RESULT: "envelope",
     FLOW_ANSWER_AMBIGUOUS: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_SIGNAL_UNKNOWN: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_CHOICE_UNKNOWN: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_APPROVAL_MISSING: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_APPROVAL_MISMATCH: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_ACTION_MISMATCH: "evaluated",
+    FLOW_SIGNAL_UNKNOWN: "envelope",
+    FLOW_CHOICE_UNKNOWN: "envelope",
+    FLOW_APPROVAL_MISSING: "envelope",
+    FLOW_APPROVAL_MISMATCH: "envelope",
+    WORKSPACE_COMMIT_UNAVAILABLE: "envelope",
+    WORKSPACE_COMMIT_APPROVAL_INVALID: "envelope",
+    FLOW_ACTION_MISMATCH: "envelope",
     // The execution verdict's own vocabulary: it judges a result that WAS read.
     FLOW_EXECUTION_NOT_COMPLETED: "evaluated",
     FLOW_EVIDENCE_MISSING: "evaluated",
-    WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_MISSING: "evaluated",
+    WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_MISSING: "envelope",
     WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_INVALID: "evaluated",
-    WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_STALE: "evaluated",
+    WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_SHAPE_INVALID: "envelope",
+    WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_ROOT_MISMATCH: "envelope",
+    WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_UNOBSERVABLE: "envelope",
+    WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_STALE: "envelope",
     FLOW_EFFECT_PARTIAL: "evaluated",
     // The phase validation's own: the proofs were read and they are not this
     // batch's — nothing changed since its base, or they already credited another.
     PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_UNCHANGED: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_STALE: "control",
+    PLAN_VALIDATION_ONLY_NOT_APPROVED: "evaluated",
     PLAN_EXEC_PROOF_REUSED: "evaluated",
-    // The scope boundary's own vocabulary. Its answer is `decisions.sources` plus
-    // `decisions.plan`, and every one of these means the CLI read them and found
-    // them wanting — a decision that did not resolve the gap.
+    PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_REVIEW_INVALID: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_COMMIT_UNOBSERVABLE: "envelope",
+    PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_COMMIT_MESSAGE_INVALID: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_PATHS_REQUIRED: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_SHARED_PATH: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_PATH_NOT_OWNED: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_ISOLATION_INVALID: "envelope",
+    PLAN_TEST_RUN_NOT_EXECUTED: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_FINAL_PIPELINE_MISSING: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_PREEXISTING_FAILURES_INVALID: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_TEST_FAILURES_UNREADABLE: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_TEST_FAILURE_NEW: "evaluated",
+    // The scope boundary distinguishes malformed fields and unavailable documents
+    // from a proposed source set that the workspace or plan cannot accept.
     FLOW_SCOPE_INVALID: "evaluated",
+    FLOW_SCOPE_SHAPE_INVALID: "envelope",
     FLOW_SCOPE_UNKNOWN_SOURCE: "evaluated",
     FLOW_SCOPE_NOT_IN_PLAN: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_SCOPE_PLAN_UNREADABLE: "evaluated",
+    FLOW_SCOPE_PLAN_UNREADABLE: "envelope",
     // The submitted scope named a plan and the CLI read it, but its location
     // violates the canonical documentation boundary.
-    FLOW_SCOPE_PLAN_OUTSIDE_CANON: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_HANDOFF_PLAN_MISSING: "evaluated",
-    // El preview del arreglo llegó y no declara lo que la frontera pide: archivos,
-    // intención y forma esperada del diff. La respuesta SE LEYÓ, así que gasta — y
-    // la frontera anuncia la forma exacta, así que el primer intento puede traerla.
-    FLOW_PREVIEW_INVALID: "evaluated",
-    // The plan-exec deviation choice was syntactically admissible but its durable
-    // consequence could not be derived or published against the live lineage.
-    // These are evaluated rather than envelope refusals: the gate read the choice
-    // and the workspace facts needed to act on it.
-    FLOW_DECISION_SCOPE_MISSING: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_DECISION_INPUT_INVALID: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_DECISION_PLAN_UNREADABLE: "evaluated",
+    FLOW_SCOPE_PLAN_OUTSIDE_CANON: "envelope",
+    FLOW_HANDOFF_PLAN_MISSING: "envelope",
+    // El preview sin archivos, intención o forma del diff sigue incompleto.
+    FLOW_PREVIEW_INVALID: "envelope",
+    // The choice itself can be refused (evaluated); missing shape or an unreadable
+    // live baseline cannot be charged to its author.
+    FLOW_DECISION_SCOPE_MISSING: "envelope",
+    FLOW_DECISION_INPUT_INVALID: "envelope",
+    FLOW_DECISION_PLAN_UNREADABLE: "envelope",
     FLOW_DECISION_LINEAGE_INVALID: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_DECISION_SPEC_UNREADABLE: "evaluated",
+    FLOW_DECISION_SPEC_UNREADABLE: "envelope",
     FLOW_DECISION_UNRESOLVABLE: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_DECISION_PREPARATION_FAILED: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_DECISION_PREVIEW_ABSENT: "evaluated",
+    FLOW_DECISION_PREPARATION_FAILED: "envelope",
+    FLOW_DECISION_PREVIEW_ABSENT: "envelope",
     // The settlement's own vocabulary. Both mean the CLI READ the declaration and
     // compared it against what the plan really owes — a declaration that answers
     // for the wrong obligations, or that leaves one unanswered.
     FLOW_SETTLEMENT_INVALID: "evaluated",
     FLOW_SETTLEMENT_INCOMPLETE: "evaluated",
-    PLAN_SOURCE_BOUNDARY_MISSING: "evaluated",
-    PLAN_SOURCE_UNKNOWN: "evaluated",
-    PLAN_TASK_SOURCE_OUTSIDE_PHASE: "evaluated",
-    PLAN_SOURCE_EXTERNAL_CLOSURE: "evaluated",
-    PLAN_SOURCE_LOCAL_PROOF_MISSING: "evaluated",
+    PLAN_SOURCE_BOUNDARY_MISSING: "envelope",
+    PLAN_SOURCE_UNKNOWN: "envelope",
+    PLAN_TASK_SOURCE_OUTSIDE_PHASE: "envelope",
+    PLAN_SOURCE_EXTERNAL_CLOSURE: "envelope",
+    PLAN_SOURCE_LOCAL_PROOF_MISSING: "envelope",
     // The plan's grammar does not spend: a plan published without its lineage is
     // refused for what its header says, and fixing the header is the whole answer.
     PLAN_LINEAGE_UNSEALED: "envelope",
     // The authoring boundary's: the bytes arrived and what they would do is not
     // what the row declares, or their destination could not be read.
     FLOW_PROPOSAL_BEYOND_CONTRACT: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_PROPOSAL_DESTINATION_UNOBSERVED: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_PROPOSAL_BASE_UNREADABLE: "evaluated",
-    // The adaptive route boundary read the proposal or the accepted disposition
-    // and rejected it: malformed route data, a replacement without its agreed
-    // validation/risk, or an attempt to make an unconfigured hard gate optional.
-    FLOW_ROUTE_DECISION_INVALID: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_ROUTE_PROPOSAL_INVALID: "evaluated",
-    FLOW_ROUTE_SUBSTITUTION_INVALID: "evaluated",
+    FLOW_PROPOSAL_DESTINATION_UNOBSERVED: "envelope",
+    FLOW_PROPOSAL_BASE_UNREADABLE: "envelope",
+    // Route shape is free; attempting to bypass a hard gate is evaluated.
+    FLOW_ROUTE_DECISION_INVALID: "envelope",
+    FLOW_ROUTE_PROPOSAL_INVALID: "envelope",
+    FLOW_ROUTE_SUBSTITUTION_INVALID: "envelope",
     FLOW_ROUTE_HARD_GATE: "evaluated",
+    // The author's draft is a shape; a contradictory claim or a scope the
+    // contract refuses is content. A moved baseline or publication is state.
+    NOTE_NOT_OBJECT: "envelope",
+    NOTE_SCHEMA_UNKNOWN: "envelope",
+    NOTE_ID_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_DECISION_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_REASON_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_CONSUMERS_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_EVIDENCE_PRESERVED_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_EVIDENCE_INVALIDATED_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_OBLIGATIONS_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_OBLIGATIONS_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_OBLIGATION_KIND_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_RESUME_POINT_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_DATE_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_DIGEST_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_DIGEST_MISMATCH: "envelope",
+    NOTE_SCOPE_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_SUPERSEDES_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_ASSERTIONS_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_ASSERTIONS_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_ASSERTIONS_DUPLICATE: "envelope",
+    NOTE_LINEAGE_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_LINEAGE_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_LINEAGE_DIGEST_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_EXECUTION_STATE_MISSING: "envelope",
+    NOTE_INDEX_UNREADABLE: "envelope",
+    NOTE_INDEX_INVALID: "envelope",
+    NOTE_INDEX_SCHEMA_UNKNOWN: "envelope",
+    NOTE_ALREADY_PUBLISHED: "control",
+    NOTE_SUPERSEDES_ABSENT: "evaluated",
+    NOTE_REWRITES_BASELINE: "evaluated",
+    CONTRACT_BASELINE_ABSENT: "envelope",
+    CONTRACT_ASSERTION_ABSENT: "evaluated",
+    CONTRACT_OVERLAP: "evaluated",
+    CONTRACT_CONTRADICTION: "evaluated",
+    DECISION_BASE_ABSENT: "envelope",
+    PROPOSAL_LOCKED: "control",
+    PROPOSAL_BASELINE_UNSEALED: "envelope",
+    PROPOSAL_APPROVAL_MISMATCH: "envelope",
+    PROPOSAL_APPROVAL_MISSING: "envelope",
+    PROPOSAL_BASE_GONE: "envelope",
+    PROPOSAL_BASE_STALE: "envelope",
     // A compensation the run declared STILL PENDING is not a malformed answer and
     // not a failed check: it is the truthful one. The closure stays where it is
     // until the work is done, and charging an attempt for saying so would make
@@ -276,45 +354,49 @@ function semanticAnswer(body, input) {
     const proposes = proposalContractOf(input.decision);
     const declared = new Set(input.decision.signals ?? []);
     const raw = body.signals;
+    const issues = [];
     if (raw !== undefined && !isStringArray(raw)) {
-        return { ok: false, failure: invalid("'signals' tiene que ser una lista de identificadores") };
+        issues.push(violation(invalid("'signals' tiene que ser una lista de identificadores"), "signals", "string[]", raw));
     }
-    const signals = raw ?? [];
+    const signals = isStringArray(raw) ? raw : [];
     const decisions = body.decisions;
     if (decisions !== undefined && !isRecord(decisions)) {
-        return { ok: false, failure: invalid("'decisions' tiene que ser un objeto") };
+        issues.push(violation(invalid("'decisions' tiene que ser un objeto"), "decisions", "objeto", decisions));
     }
     // A flow control IS an answer, including here. It used to die on the emptiness
     // check below — a semantic boundary demands signals or decisions — and
     // `FLOW_ANSWER_AMBIGUOUS` is an EVALUATED rejection, so asking to compact cost
     // an attempt at exactly the boundary somebody was trying to pause.
     const control = flowControlOf(body);
-    const substance = checkSubstance(body, {
-        signals,
-        decisions,
-        proposes: proposes !== null,
-        control,
-    });
+    const substance = issues.length > 0
+        ? null
+        : checkSubstance(body, {
+            decision: input.decision,
+            signals,
+            decisions,
+            proposes: proposes !== null,
+            control,
+        });
     if (substance !== null)
-        return { ok: false, failure: substance };
+        issues.push(violation(substance, "artifacts", "respuesta con contenido para la frontera", body.artifacts));
     const artifacts = proposes === null ? EMPTY : parseArtifacts(body.artifacts, input);
     if (!Array.isArray(artifacts))
-        return { ok: false, failure: artifacts.failure };
+        issues.push(violation(artifacts.failure, "artifacts", "lista de {path, content}", body.artifacts));
     for (const signal of signals) {
         if (declared.has(signal))
             continue;
-        return {
-            ok: false,
-            failure: {
-                code: "FLOW_SIGNAL_UNKNOWN",
-                message: `'${signal}' no está en el vocabulario que esta frontera admite`,
-                action: `declarás solo: ${[...declared].join(", ") || "(ninguna señal en esta frontera)"}`,
-            },
+        const failure = {
+            code: "FLOW_SIGNAL_UNKNOWN",
+            message: `'${signal}' no está en el vocabulario que esta frontera admite`,
+            action: `declarás solo: ${[...declared].join(", ") || "(ninguna señal en esta frontera)"}`,
         };
+        issues.push(violation(failure, "signals", [...declared].join(" | ") || "ninguna", signal));
     }
     if (new Set(signals).size !== signals.length) {
-        return { ok: false, failure: invalid("la misma señal viene declarada dos veces") };
+        issues.push(violation(invalid("la misma señal viene declarada dos veces"), "signals", "identificadores únicos", signals));
     }
+    if (issues.length > 0)
+        return { ok: false, failure: collected(issues) };
     return {
         ok: true,
         answer: {
@@ -326,11 +408,22 @@ function semanticAnswer(body, input) {
             // boundary has no alternatives of its own to pick from.
             choice: control,
             result: null,
-            artifacts,
+            artifacts: artifacts,
         },
     };
 }
 const EMPTY = [];
+function checkAnswerContract(decision, decisions, control) {
+    if (control !== null || decision.answer_contract !== "batch-review")
+        return null;
+    if (isRecord(decisions) && isBatchReview(decisions.review))
+        return null;
+    return {
+        code: "PLAN_EXEC_BATCH_REVIEW_INVALID",
+        message: "la revisión del lote falta o no demuestra un revisor distinto y cada corrección revisada",
+        action: BATCH_REVIEW_CONTRACT,
+    };
+}
 /**
  * Whether the answer says anything the CLI can act on — and the right thing.
  *
@@ -343,6 +436,9 @@ const EMPTY = [];
  * nobody to approve them are precisely the write this contract forbids.
  */
 function checkSubstance(body, answered) {
+    const contract = checkAnswerContract(answered.decision, answered.decisions, answered.control);
+    if (contract !== null)
+        return contract;
     const hasArtifacts = Array.isArray(body.artifacts) && body.artifacts.length > 0;
     if (hasArtifacts && !answered.proposes) {
         return {
@@ -398,11 +494,24 @@ function parseArtifacts(raw, input) {
     }
     const parsed = parseSemanticArtifacts(raw, request);
     if (!parsed.ok) {
+        const individual = Array.isArray(raw)
+            ? raw.flatMap((entry, index) => {
+                const checked = parseSemanticArtifacts([entry], request);
+                return checked.ok
+                    ? []
+                    : [
+                        violation(checked.failure, `artifacts[${index}]`, "{path: ruta permitida, content: string}", entry).violation,
+                    ];
+            })
+            : [];
         return {
             failure: {
                 code: parsed.failure.code,
                 message: parsed.failure.message,
                 action: parsed.failure.action,
+                violations: individual.length > 0
+                    ? individual
+                    : [violation(parsed.failure, "artifacts", "lista de {path, content}", raw).violation],
             },
         };
     }
@@ -490,7 +599,7 @@ function approvalAnswer(body, input) {
             failure: {
                 code: "FLOW_APPROVAL_MISSING",
                 message: "esta frontera necesita una aprobación de efecto y no llegó ninguna",
-                action: `volvé a invocar con --approval ${input.expectedApproval ?? "<digest>"}, o respondé '${STOP_LABEL}' para no autorizarla`,
+                action: `volvé a invocar con --approval ${input.expectedApproval ?? "<digest>"}, o respondé '${STOP_LABEL}' para cerrar la sesión conservando lo pendiente sin autorizar ese efecto`,
             },
         };
     }
@@ -525,65 +634,58 @@ function executionAnswer(body, input) {
     if (action === null) {
         return { ok: false, failure: badResult("esta frontera no declara ninguna acción delegada") };
     }
+    const issues = [];
+    const add = (failure, field, expected, value) => {
+        issues.push(violation(failure, field, expected, value));
+    };
     const outcome = body.outcome;
     // Absent and out-of-vocabulary are DIFFERENT failures and no longer share a
     // sentence. They used to, and the sentence described only the second one.
     if (outcome === undefined) {
-        return { ok: false, failure: badResult(missingOutcome(body)) };
+        add(badResult(missingOutcome(body)), "outcome", CAPABILITY_OUTCOMES.join(" | "), outcome);
     }
-    if (typeof outcome !== "string" ||
+    else if (typeof outcome !== "string" ||
         !CAPABILITY_OUTCOMES.includes(outcome)) {
-        return {
-            ok: false,
-            failure: badResult(`'outcome' tiene que ser uno de: ${CAPABILITY_OUTCOMES.join(", ")} — una confirmación booleana o una narración no son un resultado`),
-        };
+        add(badResult(`'outcome' tiene que ser uno de: ${CAPABILITY_OUTCOMES.join(", ")} — una confirmación booleana o una narración no son un resultado`), "outcome", CAPABILITY_OUTCOMES.join(" | "), outcome);
     }
     const invocation = readInvocation(body.invocation);
     if (invocation === null) {
-        return {
-            ok: false,
-            failure: {
-                code: "FLOW_RESULT_INVALID",
-                message: "el resultado no declara la invocación que se ejecutó",
-                action: "devolvé 'invocation' con el programa, los argumentos y el target que corriste: sin eso, nada distingue una ejecución de una afirmación",
-            },
-        };
+        add({
+            code: "FLOW_RESULT_INVALID",
+            message: `el resultado no declara la invocación que se ejecutó: invocation espera {program: string, args: string[], target: string, input: string|null}; recibió ${Array.isArray(body.invocation) ? "lista" : typeof body.invocation}`,
+            action: "devolvé 'invocation' con el programa, los argumentos y el target que corriste: sin eso, nada distingue una ejecución de una afirmación",
+        }, "invocation", "{program, args, target, input}", body.invocation);
     }
-    const mismatch = invocationMismatch(action.invocation, invocation);
-    if (mismatch !== null) {
-        return {
-            ok: false,
-            failure: {
+    else {
+        const mismatch = invocationMismatch(action.invocation, invocation);
+        if (mismatch !== null)
+            add({
                 code: "FLOW_ACTION_MISMATCH",
                 message: `el resultado corresponde a otra invocación: ${mismatch}`,
                 action: `ejecutá exactamente '${[action.invocation.program, ...action.invocation.args].join(" ")}' en ${action.invocation.target} y devolvé su resultado`,
-            },
-        };
+            }, "invocation", "invocación sellada", body.invocation);
     }
-    const read = readValidations(body.validations);
+    const read = readValidations(body.validations, action.evidence);
     if (!read.ok) {
-        // The rejection lands on the half that is actually wrong: a diagnosable nested
-        // proof is the proof's, and only a container breaking its own shape is the
-        // envelope's. Reserving FLOW_RESULT_INVALID for the latter is the point.
-        return {
-            ok: false,
-            failure: read.defect !== null
-                ? proofShapeFailure(read.defect)
-                : badResult(badValidations(body.validations, action.evidence)),
-        };
+        issues.push(...read.issues);
     }
-    const validations = read.validations;
-    const effects = readLedger(body.effects);
+    const effects = readLedger(body.effects, outcome === "completed" ? effectsOf(input.decision) : []);
     if (effects === null) {
-        return {
-            ok: false,
-            failure: badResult("'effects' tiene que traer el registro planned/approved/applied del resultado"),
-        };
+        const ledger = body.effects;
+        const field = isRecord(ledger) && ledger.applied !== undefined ? "effects.applied" : "effects";
+        const unknown = isRecord(ledger) && Array.isArray(ledger.applied)
+            ? ledger.applied.find((effect) => !isEffectClass(effect))
+            : undefined;
+        add(badResult(unknown === undefined
+            ? "'effects' tiene que traer el registro planned/approved/applied del resultado"
+            : `'effects.applied' trae la clase ${JSON.stringify(unknown)}; las válidas son ${EFFECT_CLASSES.join(", ")}`), field, "{planned: EffectClass[], approved: EffectClass[], applied: EffectClass[]}", field === "effects" ? ledger : ledger.applied);
     }
     const output = readOutput(body.output);
     if (output === undefined) {
-        return { ok: false, failure: badResult("'output' tiene que ser un OperationOutput o null") };
+        add(badResult("'output' tiene que ser un OperationOutput o null"), "output", "OperationOutput | null", body.output);
     }
+    if (issues.length > 0)
+        return { ok: false, failure: collected(issues) };
     return {
         ok: true,
         answer: {
@@ -591,7 +693,13 @@ function executionAnswer(body, input) {
             signals: [],
             decisions: {},
             choice: null,
-            result: { outcome: outcome, invocation, output, validations, effects },
+            result: {
+                outcome: outcome,
+                invocation: invocation,
+                output: output,
+                validations: read.ok ? read.validations : [],
+                effects: effects,
+            },
             artifacts: EMPTY,
         },
     };
@@ -652,12 +760,12 @@ function badValidations(value, evidence) {
         const keys = Object.keys(entry);
         const seen = keys.length > 0 ? ` (trae: ${keys.join(", ")})` : " (viene vacía)";
         if (typeof entry.id !== "string")
-            return `la validación ${index + 1} no trae 'id'${seen}`;
+            return `la validación ${index + 1} no trae 'id': validations[${index}].id espera string; recibió ${typeof entry.id}${seen}`;
         if (typeof entry.passed !== "boolean") {
-            return `la validación '${entry.id}' no trae 'passed' booleano${seen}`;
+            return `validations[${index}].passed espera boolean; recibió ${typeof entry.passed}${seen}`;
         }
         if (entry.detail !== undefined && entry.detail !== null && typeof entry.detail !== "string") {
-            return `la validación '${entry.id}' trae un 'detail' que no es texto: ahí va la salida real del comando`;
+            return `validations[${index}].detail espera string o null; recibió ${typeof entry.detail}: ahí va la salida real del comando`;
         }
     }
     return `'validations' tiene que ser ${shape}`;
@@ -669,7 +777,7 @@ function invocationMismatch(sealed, ran) {
     if (sealed.args.length !== ran.args.length || sealed.args.some((arg, i) => arg !== ran.args[i])) {
         return `argumentos '${ran.args.join(" ")}' en vez de '${sealed.args.join(" ")}'`;
     }
-    if (sealed.target !== ran.target)
+    if (resolve(sealed.target) !== resolve(ran.target))
         return `target '${ran.target}' en vez de '${sealed.target}'`;
     if ((sealed.input ?? null) !== (ran.input ?? null))
         return "otro input";
@@ -689,31 +797,58 @@ function readInvocation(value) {
         return null;
     return { program: value.program, args: value.args, target: value.target, input };
 }
-function readValidations(value) {
+function readValidations(value, evidence) {
     if (value === undefined)
         return { ok: true, validations: [] };
+    const bad = () => badResult(badValidations(value, evidence));
     if (!Array.isArray(value))
-        return { ok: false, defect: null };
+        return {
+            ok: false,
+            issues: [violation(bad(), "validations", "lista de {id, passed, detail}", value)],
+        };
     const out = [];
-    for (const entry of value) {
-        if (!isRecord(entry))
-            return { ok: false, defect: null };
-        if (typeof entry.id !== "string" || typeof entry.passed !== "boolean") {
-            return { ok: false, defect: null };
+    const issues = [];
+    const add = (failure, field, expected, received) => {
+        issues.push(violation(failure, field, expected, received));
+    };
+    for (const [index, entry] of value.entries()) {
+        if (!isRecord(entry)) {
+            add(bad(), `validations[${index}]`, "{id, passed, detail}", entry);
+            continue;
+        }
+        const field = `validations[${index}]`;
+        if (typeof entry.id !== "string") {
+            add(bad(), `${field}.id`, "string", entry.id);
+        }
+        if (typeof entry.passed !== "boolean") {
+            add(bad(), `${field}.passed`, "boolean", entry.passed);
         }
         const detail = entry.detail === undefined ? null : entry.detail;
-        if (detail !== null && typeof detail !== "string")
-            return { ok: false, defect: null };
-        if (entry.proof === undefined) {
+        if (detail !== null && typeof detail !== "string") {
+            add(bad(), `${field}.detail`, "string | null", detail);
+        }
+        if (entry.proof === undefined || entry.proof === null) {
+            if (typeof entry.id !== "string" ||
+                typeof entry.passed !== "boolean" ||
+                (detail !== null && typeof detail !== "string"))
+                continue;
             out.push({ id: entry.id, passed: entry.passed, detail });
             continue;
         }
         const read = readCheckoutProof(entry.proof);
-        if (!read.ok)
-            return { ok: false, defect: read.defect };
+        if (!read.ok) {
+            const failure = proofShapeFailure(read.defect);
+            const suffix = read.defect.where === "proof" ? "" : `.${read.defect.where}`;
+            add(failure, `${field}.proof${suffix}`, read.defect.expected.join(" | "), entry.proof);
+            continue;
+        }
+        if (typeof entry.id !== "string" ||
+            typeof entry.passed !== "boolean" ||
+            (detail !== null && typeof detail !== "string"))
+            continue;
         out.push({ id: entry.id, passed: entry.passed, detail, proof: read.proof });
     }
-    return { ok: true, validations: out };
+    return issues.length === 0 ? { ok: true, validations: out } : { ok: false, issues };
 }
 /** The fields each `kind` demands of its `invocation`, named once. */
 const PROOF_INVOCATION_FIELDS = {
@@ -818,17 +953,17 @@ function proofShapeFailure(defect) {
             ? `el 'proof' de kind '${defect.kind}' trae una 'invocation' que ese kind no acepta: espera ${defect.expected.join(", ")} y ${received}`
             : `el 'proof' de kind '${defect.kind ?? "(ausente)"}' no satisface la forma de su kind: espera ${defect.expected.join(", ")} (${received})`;
     return {
-        code: "WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_INVALID",
+        code: "WORKLINE_CHECKOUT_PROOF_SHAPE_INVALID",
         message,
         action: "corregí el 'proof' anidado, no la lista 'validations': un kind 'command' pide {program, args} y un 'inspection' pide {artifact} — sin 'target' ni 'input', aunque la directiva los traiga. 'aw flow prove' lo produce ya bien formado y sin gastar intento",
     };
 }
-function readLedger(value) {
+function readLedger(value, defaultApplied = []) {
     if (!isRecord(value))
         return null;
     const planned = readEffectClasses(value.planned);
     const approved = readEffectClasses(value.approved);
-    const applied = readEffectClasses(value.applied);
+    const applied = value.applied === undefined ? [...defaultApplied] : readEffectClasses(value.applied);
     if (planned === null || approved === null || applied === null)
         return null;
     return { planned, approved, applied };