codex-workflows 0.6.7 → 0.6.9

package/.codex/agents/code-reviewer.toml

@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ For each acceptance criterion extracted in Step 1:
 - For behavior-changing ACs, confirm the evidence covers main and boundary paths. Where a distinct branch, state, input class, lifecycle step, or fallback governs the behavior, verify it is exercised. Compare source/referenced behavior and implemented behavior at the same granularity; an unsupported change in a boundary dimension is a `dd_violation`.
 - Confirm the implementation keeps the core mechanism the AC, Design Doc, or referenced materials require. A simpler substitute that passes tests but drops the required mechanism is a `dd_violation`.
 - For changes to persisted, shared, or externally observable state, identify the publication boundary where the new state becomes observable to another process, component, user, or later step. State that is observable as complete while still partial, uninitialized, stale, or rollback-only (written as a rollback/compensation path rather than committed usable state) is a `reliability` finding.
+- When the reviewed task has `Change Category` set to `bug-fix`, `regression`, `state-change`, or `boundary-change`, check cases sharing its path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary. A sibling case still carrying the same class of defect is an `adjacent_residual` finding.
 
 #### 2-2. Identifier Verification
 For each identifier specification extracted in Step 1:
@@ -134,12 +135,14 @@ Classify each quality finding into one of:
 - `maintainability`: code structure impedes change or comprehension
 - `reliability`: missing safeguards could cause runtime failure
 - `coverage_gap`: acceptance criteria lack meaningful test verification
+- `adjacent_residual`: a case sharing the change's path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary still carries the same class of defect
 
 Each finding MUST include a rationale:
 - `dd_violation`: what the Design Doc says vs what code does
 - `maintainability`: the concrete maintenance or comprehension risk
 - `reliability`: the failure scenario and triggering conditions
 - `coverage_gap`: the untested AC and why coverage matters
+- `adjacent_residual`: which adjacent case shares the path, contract, persisted state, or external boundary and how it still exhibits the defect class
 
 ### 4. Check Architecture Compliance
 Verify against the Design Doc architecture:
@@ -161,63 +164,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 ## Output Format
 
 ```json
-{
-  "complianceRate": "[X]%",
-  "identifierMatchRate": "[X]%",
-  "verdict": "[pass/needs-improvement/needs-redesign]",
-
-  "acceptanceCriteria": [
-    {
-      "item": "[acceptance criteria name]",
-      "status": "fulfilled|partially_fulfilled|unfulfilled",
-      "confidence": "high|medium|low",
-      "location": "[file:line, if implemented]",
-      "evidence": ["[source1: file:line]", "[source2: test file:line]"],
-      "gap": "[what is missing or deviating, if not fully fulfilled]",
-      "suggestion": "[specific fix, if not fully fulfilled]"
-    }
-  ],
-
-  "identifierVerification": [
-    {
-      "identifier": "[identifier name]",
-      "designDocValue": "[value specified in Design Doc]",
-      "codeValue": "[value found in code, or 'not found']",
-      "location": "[file:line]",
-      "confidence": "high|medium|low",
-      "evidence": ["[source1: file:line]", "[source2: config file:line]"],
-      "match": false
-    }
-  ],
-
-  "qualityFindings": [
-    {
-      "category": "dd_violation|maintainability|reliability|coverage_gap",
-      "location": "[filename:function or file:line]",
-      "description": "[specific issue]",
-      "rationale": "[why this matters]",
-      "suggestion": "[specific improvement]"
-    }
-  ],
-
-  "summary": {
-    "acsTotal": 0,
-    "acsFulfilled": 0,
-    "acsPartial": 0,
-    "acsUnfulfilled": 0,
-    "identifiersTotal": 0,
-    "identifiersMatched": 0,
-    "lowConfidenceItems": 0,
-    "findingsByCategory": {
-      "dd_violation": 0,
-      "maintainability": 0,
-      "reliability": 0,
-      "coverage_gap": 0
-    }
-  },
-
-  "nextAction": "[highest priority action needed]"
-}
+{"complianceRate":"[X]%","identifierMatchRate":"[X]%","verdict":"[pass/needs-improvement/needs-redesign]","acceptanceCriteria":[{"item":"[acceptance criteria name]","status":"fulfilled|partially_fulfilled|unfulfilled","confidence":"high|medium|low","location":"[file:line, if implemented]","evidence":["[source1: file:line]","[source2: test file:line]"],"gap":"[what is missing or deviating, if not fully fulfilled]","suggestion":"[specific fix, if not fully fulfilled]"}],"identifierVerification":[{"identifier":"[identifier name]","designDocValue":"[value specified in Design Doc]","codeValue":"[value found in code, or 'not found']","location":"[file:line]","confidence":"high|medium|low","evidence":["[source1: file:line]","[source2: config file:line]"],"match":false}],"qualityFindings":[{"category":"dd_violation|maintainability|reliability|coverage_gap|adjacent_residual","location":"[filename:function or file:line]","description":"[specific issue]","rationale":"[why this matters]","suggestion":"[specific improvement]"}],"summary":{"acsTotal":0,"acsFulfilled":0,"acsPartial":0,"acsUnfulfilled":0,"identifiersTotal":0,"identifiersMatched":0,"lowConfidenceItems":0,"findingsByCategory":{"dd_violation":0,"maintainability":0,"reliability":0,"coverage_gap":0,"adjacent_residual":0}},"nextAction":"[highest priority action needed]"}
 ```
 
 `identifierVerification` MUST include mismatches only. Use `summary.identifiersTotal` and `summary.identifiersMatched` for overall counts.

package/.codex/agents/code-verifier.toml

@@ -158,53 +158,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 ### Essential Output (default)
 
 ```json
-{
-  "summary": {
-    "docType": "prd|design-doc",
-    "documentPath": "/path/to/document.md",
-    "verifiableClaimCount": 24,
-    "matchCount": 20,
-    "consistencyScore": 85,
-    "status": "consistent|mostly_consistent|needs_review|inconsistent"
-  },
-  "claimCoverage": {
-    "sectionsAnalyzed": 8,
-    "sectionsWithClaims": 7,
-    "sectionsWithZeroClaims": ["Appendix"]
-  },
-  "discrepancies": [
-    {
-      "id": "D001",
-      "status": "drift|gap|conflict",
-      "severity": "critical|major|minor",
-      "claim": "Brief claim description",
-      "documentLocation": "PRD.md:45",
-      "codeLocation": "src/auth.ts:120",
-      "evidence": "Observed implementation or enumeration result",
-      "classification": "What was found"
-    }
-  ],
-  "reverseCoverage": {
-    "routesInCode": 6,
-    "routesDocumented": 5,
-    "undocumentedRoutes": ["POST /admin/reindex (src/routes/admin.ts:42)"],
-    "testFilesFound": 4,
-    "testFilesDocumented": 2,
-    "exportsInCode": 12,
-    "exportsDocumented": 10,
-    "undocumentedExports": ["rebuildSearchIndex (src/search/index.ts:18)"],
-    "dataOperationsInCode": 3,
-    "dataOperationsDocumented": 2,
-    "undocumentedDataOperations": ["userRepository.saveUser (src/user/repository.ts:41)"],
-    "testBoundariesSectionPresent": true
-  },
-  "coverage": {
-    "documented": ["Feature areas with documentation"],
-    "undocumented": ["Code features lacking documentation"],
-    "unimplemented": ["Documented specs not yet implemented"]
-  },
-  "limitations": ["What could not be verified and why"]
-}
+{"summary":{"docType":"prd|design-doc","documentPath":"/path/to/document.md","verifiableClaimCount":24,"matchCount":20,"consistencyScore":85,"status":"consistent|mostly_consistent|needs_review|inconsistent"},"claimCoverage":{"sectionsAnalyzed":8,"sectionsWithClaims":7,"sectionsWithZeroClaims":["Appendix"]},"discrepancies":[{"id":"D001","status":"drift|gap|conflict","severity":"critical|major|minor","claim":"Brief claim description","documentLocation":"PRD.md:45","codeLocation":"src/auth.ts:120","evidence":"Observed implementation or enumeration result","classification":"What was found"}],"reverseCoverage":{"routesInCode":6,"routesDocumented":5,"undocumentedRoutes":["POST /admin/reindex (src/routes/admin.ts:42)"],"testFilesFound":4,"testFilesDocumented":2,"exportsInCode":12,"exportsDocumented":10,"undocumentedExports":["rebuildSearchIndex (src/search/index.ts:18)"],"dataOperationsInCode":3,"dataOperationsDocumented":2,"undocumentedDataOperations":["userRepository.saveUser (src/user/repository.ts:41)"],"testBoundariesSectionPresent":true},"coverage":{"documented":["Feature areas with documentation"],"undocumented":["Code features lacking documentation"],"unimplemented":["Documented specs not yet implemented"]},"limitations":["What could not be verified and why"]}
 ```
 
 ### Extended Output (verbose: true)

package/.codex/agents/codebase-analyzer.toml

@@ -129,112 +129,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response.
 ## Output Format
 
 ```json
-{
-  "analysisScope": {
-    "filesAnalyzed": ["path/to/file"],
-    "tracedDependencies": ["path/to/dependency"],
-    "categoriesDetected": ["data_layer", "validation"]
-  },
-  "existingElements": [
-    {
-      "category": "function|class|type|interface|component|hook|configuration|constant",
-      "name": "ElementName",
-      "filePath": "path/to/file:line",
-      "signature": "Exact or brief signature",
-      "usedBy": ["path/to/consumer"]
-    }
-  ],
-  "dataModel": {
-    "detected": true,
-    "schemas": [
-      {
-        "name": "table_or_model",
-        "definitionPath": "path/to/file:line",
-        "fields": [
-          {
-            "name": "field_name",
-            "type": "field_type",
-            "constraints": ["NOT NULL", "UNIQUE"]
-          }
-        ],
-        "relationships": ["references other_table via foreign_key"]
-      }
-    ],
-    "accessPatterns": [
-      {
-        "operation": "read|write|aggregate|join|delete",
-        "location": "path/to/file:line",
-        "targetSchema": "table_or_model",
-        "description": "Observed access pattern"
-      }
-    ],
-    "migrationFiles": ["path/to/migration"]
-  },
-  "dataTransformationPipelines": [
-    {
-      "entryPoint": "functionOrMethodName (path/to/file:line)",
-      "steps": [
-        {
-          "order": 1,
-          "method": "functionOrMethodName (path/to/file:line)",
-          "input": "Input data or format at this step",
-          "output": "Output data or format at this step",
-          "externalLookups": ["Config.KEY lookup", "Reference table mapping"],
-          "transformation": "What changed and why it matters"
-        }
-      ],
-      "intermediateFormats": ["Intermediate representation if applicable"],
-      "finalOutput": "Final output shape or observable value"
-    }
-  ],
-  "entryPointInventory": [
-    {
-      "entryPoint": "functionOrMethodName (path/to/file:line)",
-      "classification": "change-relevant|non-relevant",
-      "inputShape": "Input type or shape",
-      "outputShape": "Output type or shape"
-    }
-  ],
-  "constraints": [
-    {
-      "type": "validation|business_rule|configuration|assumption",
-      "description": "Observed constraint",
-      "location": "path/to/file:line",
-      "impact": "Why design should respect it"
-    }
-  ],
-  "qualityAssurance": {
-    "mechanisms": [
-      {
-        "tool": "Tool or check name",
-        "enforces": "What quality aspect it enforces",
-        "configLocation": "path/to/config:line",
-        "coveredFiles": ["affected files or directories covered by this mechanism"],
-        "type": "linter|static_analysis|schema_validator|domain_specific|ci_check"
-      }
-    ],
-    "domainConstraints": [
-      {
-        "constraint": "Description of the domain-specific constraint",
-        "source": "path/to/config-or-ci:line",
-        "affectedFiles": ["files subject to this constraint"]
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  "focusAreas": [
-    {
-      "area": "Area name",
-      "reason": "Why this area deserves attention",
-      "relatedFiles": ["path/to/file"],
-      "risk": "What could break if the design overlooks it"
-    }
-  ],
-  "testCoverage": {
-    "testedElements": ["element name"],
-    "untestedElements": ["element name"]
-  },
-  "limitations": ["What could not be fully traced and why"]
-}
+{"analysisScope":{"filesAnalyzed":["path/to/file"],"tracedDependencies":["path/to/dependency"],"categoriesDetected":["data_layer","validation"]},"existingElements":[{"category":"function|class|type|interface|component|hook|configuration|constant","name":"ElementName","filePath":"path/to/file:line","signature":"Exact or brief signature","usedBy":["path/to/consumer"]}],"dataModel":{"detected":true,"schemas":[{"name":"table_or_model","definitionPath":"path/to/file:line","fields":[{"name":"field_name","type":"field_type","constraints":["NOT NULL","UNIQUE"]}],"relationships":["references other_table via foreign_key"]}],"accessPatterns":[{"operation":"read|write|aggregate|join|delete","location":"path/to/file:line","targetSchema":"table_or_model","description":"Observed access pattern"}],"migrationFiles":["path/to/migration"]},"dataTransformationPipelines":[{"entryPoint":"functionOrMethodName (path/to/file:line)","steps":[{"order":1,"method":"functionOrMethodName (path/to/file:line)","input":"Input data or format at this step","output":"Output data or format at this step","externalLookups":["Config.KEY lookup","Reference table mapping"],"transformation":"What changed and why it matters"}],"intermediateFormats":["Intermediate representation if applicable"],"finalOutput":"Final output shape or observable value"}],"entryPointInventory":[{"entryPoint":"functionOrMethodName (path/to/file:line)","classification":"change-relevant|non-relevant","inputShape":"Input type or shape","outputShape":"Output type or shape"}],"constraints":[{"type":"validation|business_rule|configuration|assumption","description":"Observed constraint","location":"path/to/file:line","impact":"Why design should respect it"}],"qualityAssurance":{"mechanisms":[{"tool":"Tool or check name","enforces":"What quality aspect it enforces","configLocation":"path/to/config:line","coveredFiles":["affected files or directories covered by this mechanism"],"type":"linter|static_analysis|schema_validator|domain_specific|ci_check"}],"domainConstraints":[{"constraint":"Description of the domain-specific constraint","source":"path/to/config-or-ci:line","affectedFiles":["files subject to this constraint"]}]},"focusAreas":[{"area":"Area name","reason":"Why this area deserves attention","relatedFiles":["path/to/file"],"risk":"What could break if the design overlooks it"}],"testCoverage":{"testedElements":["element name"],"untestedElements":["element name"]},"limitations":["What could not be fully traced and why"]}
 ```
 
 ## Completion Criteria

package/.codex/agents/design-sync.toml

@@ -228,57 +228,7 @@ Severity Assessment:
 ### Output Format [JSON MANDATORY]
 
 ```json
-{
-  "metadata": {
-    "review_type": "design-sync",
-    "source_design": "[source Design Doc path]",
-    "analyzed_docs": 3,
-    "analysis_date": "[execution datetime]"
-  },
-  "summary": {
-    "total_conflicts": 2,
-    "critical": 1,
-    "high": 1,
-    "medium": 0,
-    "confirmed_conflicts": 1,
-    "candidate_conflicts": 1,
-    "sync_status": "CONFLICTS_FOUND"
-  },
-  "confirmed_conflicts": [
-    {
-      "id": "CONFLICT-001",
-      "severity": "critical",
-      "confidence": "high",
-      "match_basis": "exact_string",
-      "type": "Type definition mismatch",
-      "source_file": "[source file]",
-      "source_location": "[section/line]",
-      "source_value": "[content in source file]",
-      "target_file": "[file with conflict]",
-      "target_location": "[section/line]",
-      "target_value": "[conflicting content]",
-      "recommendation": "[Recommend unifying to source file's value]"
-    }
-  ],
-  "candidate_conflicts": [
-    {
-      "id": "CANDIDATE-001",
-      "severity": "high",
-      "confidence": "medium",
-      "match_basis": "same_ac_slot",
-      "type": "Acceptance criteria conflict",
-      "source_file": "[source file]",
-      "source_location": "[section/line]",
-      "source_value": "[content in source file]",
-      "target_file": "[file with conflict]",
-      "target_location": "[section/line]",
-      "target_value": "[conflicting content]",
-      "reason": "[structural evidence linking the items]",
-      "recommendation": "[Recommend reviewing whether these describe the same design slot]"
-    }
-  ],
-  "no_conflicts_docs": ["[filename1]", "[filename2]"]
-}
+{"metadata":{"review_type":"design-sync","source_design":"[source Design Doc path]","analyzed_docs":3,"analysis_date":"[execution datetime]"},"summary":{"total_conflicts":2,"critical":1,"high":1,"medium":0,"confirmed_conflicts":1,"candidate_conflicts":1,"sync_status":"CONFLICTS_FOUND"},"confirmed_conflicts":[{"id":"CONFLICT-001","severity":"critical","confidence":"high","match_basis":"exact_string","type":"Type definition mismatch","source_file":"[source file]","source_location":"[section/line]","source_value":"[content in source file]","target_file":"[file with conflict]","target_location":"[section/line]","target_value":"[conflicting content]","recommendation":"[Recommend unifying to source file's value]"}],"candidate_conflicts":[{"id":"CANDIDATE-001","severity":"high","confidence":"medium","match_basis":"same_ac_slot","type":"Acceptance criteria conflict","source_file":"[source file]","source_location":"[section/line]","source_value":"[content in source file]","target_file":"[file with conflict]","target_location":"[section/line]","target_value":"[conflicting content]","reason":"[structural evidence linking the items]","recommendation":"[Recommend reviewing whether these describe the same design slot]"}],"no_conflicts_docs":["[filename1]","[filename2]"]}
 ```
 
 `total_conflicts` MUST equal `confirmed_conflicts + candidate_conflicts`.
@@ -290,19 +240,7 @@ When no conflicts: `"sync_status": "NO_CONFLICTS"`, `"confirmed_conflicts": []`,
 When fewer than 2 Design Docs exist, return immediately:
 
 ```json
-{
-  "metadata": {
-    "review_type": "design-sync",
-    "source_design": "[provided path]",
-    "analyzed_docs": 1
-  },
-  "summary": {
-    "sync_status": "SKIPPED",
-    "reason": "fewer_than_2_design_docs"
-  },
-  "confirmed_conflicts": [],
-  "candidate_conflicts": []
-}
+{"metadata":{"review_type":"design-sync","source_design":"[provided path]","analyzed_docs":1},"summary":{"sync_status":"SKIPPED","reason":"fewer_than_2_design_docs"},"confirmed_conflicts":[],"candidate_conflicts":[]}
 ```
 
 ENFORCEMENT: sync_status MUST be one of: CONFLICTS_FOUND | NO_CONFLICTS | SKIPPED. These three values are the complete vocabulary.

package/.codex/agents/document-reviewer.toml

@@ -186,73 +186,13 @@ Complete all items before proceeding to output.
 ### Comprehensive Review Mode
 
 ```json
-{
-  "metadata": {
-    "review_mode": "comprehensive",
-    "doc_type": "DesignDoc",
-    "target_path": "/path/to/document.md"
-  },
-  "scores": {
-    "consistency": 85,
-    "completeness": 80,
-    "rule_compliance": 90,
-    "clarity": 75
-  },
-  "gate0": {
-    "status": "pass|fail",
-    "missing_elements": []
-  },
-  "verdict": {
-    "decision": "approved_with_conditions",
-    "conditions": [
-      "Resolve FileUtil discrepancy",
-      "Add missing test files"
-    ]
-  },
-  "issues": [
-    {
-      "id": "I001",
-      "severity": "critical",
-      "category": "implementation",
-      "location": "Section 3.2",
-      "description": "FileUtil method mismatch",
-      "suggestion": "Update document to reflect actual FileUtil usage"
-    }
-  ],
-  "recommendations": [
-    "Priority fixes before approval",
-    "Documentation alignment with implementation"
-  ],
-  "prior_context_check": {
-    "items_received": 0,
-    "resolved": 0,
-    "partially_resolved": 0,
-    "unresolved": 0,
-    "items": []
-  }
-}
+{"metadata":{"review_mode":"comprehensive","doc_type":"DesignDoc","target_path":"/path/to/document.md"},"scores":{"consistency":85,"completeness":80,"rule_compliance":90,"clarity":75},"gate0":{"status":"pass|fail","missing_elements":[]},"verdict":{"decision":"approved_with_conditions","conditions":["Resolve FileUtil discrepancy","Add missing test files"]},"issues":[{"id":"I001","severity":"critical","category":"implementation","location":"Section 3.2","description":"FileUtil method mismatch","suggestion":"Update document to reflect actual FileUtil usage"}],"recommendations":["Priority fixes before approval","Documentation alignment with implementation"],"prior_context_check":{"items_received":0,"resolved":0,"partially_resolved":0,"unresolved":0,"items":[]}}
 ```
 
 ### Perspective-specific Mode
 
 ```json
-{
-  "metadata": {
-    "review_mode": "perspective",
-    "focus": "implementation",
-    "doc_type": "DesignDoc",
-    "target_path": "/path/to/document.md"
-  },
-  "analysis": {
-    "summary": "Analysis results description",
-    "scores": {}
-  },
-  "issues": [],
-  "checklist": [
-    {"item": "Check item description", "status": "pass|fail|na"}
-  ],
-  "recommendations": []
-}
+{"metadata":{"review_mode":"perspective","focus":"implementation","doc_type":"DesignDoc","target_path":"/path/to/document.md"},"analysis":{"summary":"Analysis results description","scores":{}},"issues":[],"checklist":[{"item":"Check item description","status":"pass|fail|na"}],"recommendations":[]}
 ```
 
 ### Prior Context Check
@@ -260,22 +200,7 @@ Complete all items before proceeding to output.
 Include in output when `prior_context_count > 0`:
 
 ```json
-{
-  "prior_context_check": {
-    "items_received": 3,
-    "resolved": 2,
-    "partially_resolved": 1,
-    "unresolved": 0,
-    "items": [
-      {
-        "id": "D001",
-        "status": "resolved",
-        "location": "Section 3.2",
-        "evidence": "Code now matches documentation"
-      }
-    ]
-  }
-}
+{"prior_context_check":{"items_received":3,"resolved":2,"partially_resolved":1,"unresolved":0,"items":[{"id":"D001","status":"resolved","location":"Section 3.2","evidence":"Code now matches documentation"}]}}
 ```
 
 ## Review Checklist (for Comprehensive Mode)

package/.codex/agents/integration-test-reviewer.toml

@@ -100,32 +100,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 ## Output Format
 
 ```json
-{
-  "status": "approved|needs_revision|blocked",
-  "testFile": "[path]",
-  "verdict": {
-    "decision": "approved|needs_revision|blocked",
-    "summary": "[1-2 sentence summary]"
-  },
-  "testsReviewed": 5,
-  "passedTests": 3,
-  "failedTests": 2,
-  "qualityIssues": [
-    {
-      "testName": "[test name]",
-      "issueType": "skeleton_mismatch|aaa_violation|independence_violation|mock_boundary|proof_insufficient|readability",
-      "severity": "high|medium|low",
-      "description": "[specific issue]",
-      "skeletonExpected": "[what skeleton specified]",
-      "actualImplementation": "[what was found]",
-      "suggestion": "[specific fix]"
-    }
-  ],
-  "requiredFixes": [
-    "[specific fix 1]",
-    "[specific fix 2]"
-  ]
-}
+{"status":"approved|needs_revision|blocked","testFile":"[path]","verdict":{"decision":"approved|needs_revision|blocked","summary":"[1-2 sentence summary]"},"testsReviewed":5,"passedTests":3,"failedTests":2,"qualityIssues":[{"testName":"[test name]","issueType":"skeleton_mismatch|aaa_violation|independence_violation|mock_boundary|proof_insufficient|readability","severity":"high|medium|low","description":"[specific issue]","skeletonExpected":"[what skeleton specified]","actualImplementation":"[what was found]","suggestion":"[specific fix]"}],"requiredFixes":["[specific fix 1]","[specific fix 2]"]}
 ```
 
 ## Status Determination

package/.codex/agents/investigator.toml

@@ -119,79 +119,7 @@ Return the JSON result as the final response. See Output Format for the schema.
 **JSON format is mandatory.**
 
 ```json
-{
-  "problemSummary": {
-    "phenomenon": "Objective description of observed phenomenon",
-    "context": "Occurrence conditions, environment, timing",
-    "scope": "Impact range"
-  },
-  "investigationSources": [
-    {
-      "type": "code|history|dependency|config|document|external",
-      "location": "Location investigated",
-      "findings": "Facts discovered (without interpretation)"
-    }
-  ],
-  "externalResearch": [
-    {
-      "query": "Search query used",
-      "source": "Information source",
-      "findings": "Related information discovered",
-      "relevance": "Relevance to this problem"
-    }
-  ],
-  "pathMap": {
-    "entryPoint": "First relevant execution entry",
-    "nodes": [
-      {
-        "id": "N1",
-        "stage": "route_entry|service_entry|validation|persistence_read|persistence_write|external_call|render|other",
-        "component": "Component or file path",
-        "description": "Role on the execution path",
-        "status": "observed|inferred|unverified"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  "failurePoints": [
-    {
-      "id": "FP1",
-      "nodeId": "N1",
-      "description": "Specific failure point description",
-      "causeCategory": "typo|logic_error|missing_constraint|design_gap|external_factor",
-      "causalChain": ["Phenomenon", "→ Direct cause", "→ Root cause"],
-      "supportingEvidence": [
-        {"evidence": "Evidence", "source": "Source", "strength": "direct|indirect|circumstantial"}
-      ],
-      "contradictingEvidence": [
-        {"evidence": "Counter-evidence", "source": "Source", "impact": "Impact on this failure point"}
-      ],
-      "unexploredAspects": ["Unverified aspects"]
-    }
-  ],
-  "comparisonAnalysis": {
-    "normalImplementation": "Path to working implementation (null if not found)",
-    "failingImplementation": "Path to problematic implementation",
-    "keyDifferences": ["Differences"]
-  },
-  "impactAnalysis": {
-    "causeCategory": "typo|logic_error|missing_constraint|design_gap|external_factor",
-    "impactScope": ["Affected file paths"],
-    "recurrenceRisk": "low|medium|high",
-    "riskRationale": "Rationale for risk determination"
-  },
-  "unexploredAreas": [
-    {"area": "Unexplored area", "reason": "Reason could not investigate", "potentialRelevance": "Relevance"}
-  ],
-  "failurePointRelationships": [
-    {
-      "from": "FP1",
-      "to": "FP2",
-      "relationship": "independent|upstream_of|downstream_of|amplifies|same_boundary"
-    }
-  ],
-  "factualObservations": ["Objective facts observed regardless of failure-point classification"],
-  "investigationLimitations": ["Limitations and constraints of this investigation"]
-}
+{"problemSummary":{"phenomenon":"Objective description of observed phenomenon","context":"Occurrence conditions, environment, timing","scope":"Impact range"},"investigationSources":[{"type":"code|history|dependency|config|document|external","location":"Location investigated","findings":"Facts discovered (without interpretation)"}],"externalResearch":[{"query":"Search query used","source":"Information source","findings":"Related information discovered","relevance":"Relevance to this problem"}],"pathMap":{"entryPoint":"First relevant execution entry","nodes":[{"id":"N1","stage":"route_entry|service_entry|validation|persistence_read|persistence_write|external_call|render|other","component":"Component or file path","description":"Role on the execution path","status":"observed|inferred|unverified"}]},"failurePoints":[{"id":"FP1","nodeId":"N1","description":"Specific failure point description","causeCategory":"typo|logic_error|missing_constraint|design_gap|external_factor","causalChain":["Phenomenon","→ Direct cause","→ Root cause"],"supportingEvidence":[{"evidence":"Evidence","source":"Source","strength":"direct|indirect|circumstantial"}],"contradictingEvidence":[{"evidence":"Counter-evidence","source":"Source","impact":"Impact on this failure point"}],"unexploredAspects":["Unverified aspects"]}],"comparisonAnalysis":{"normalImplementation":"Path to working implementation (null if not found)","failingImplementation":"Path to problematic implementation","keyDifferences":["Differences"]},"impactAnalysis":{"causeCategory":"typo|logic_error|missing_constraint|design_gap|external_factor","impactScope":["Affected file paths"],"recurrenceRisk":"low|medium|high","riskRationale":"Rationale for risk determination"},"unexploredAreas":[{"area":"Unexplored area","reason":"Reason could not investigate","potentialRelevance":"Relevance"}],"failurePointRelationships":[{"from":"FP1","to":"FP2","relationship":"independent|upstream_of|downstream_of|amplifies|same_boundary"}],"factualObservations":["Objective facts observed regardless of failure-point classification"],"investigationLimitations":["Limitations and constraints of this investigation"]}
 ```
 
 ## Completion Criteria