machine:Machine checks passed: 2/2. Review pending with human or llm.

auto-review:Real paid run confirmed: Ausca notary published document.ocr at $0.25, 2026-09-19T17:43:47Z, machine floor pinned the publisher. source_digest matches artifact content_digest, output_digest recorded, all 8 observation steps present with elapsed_ms. Three concrete issues with exact identifiers: (1) nested artifact response shape causing initial digest mismatch (field path documented), (2) catalog.json 403 without User-Agent on the discovery path (exact URL and fix named), (3) double-spend from duplicate idempotency_key mint with two on-chain tx hashes. Proposed change follows directly from issue 3. Report and evidence_json describe the same invocation throughout. No fabricated detail — the response nesting error and double-charge are the kind of finding that only surfaces from an actual run. Meets the bounty's min_quality_score of 4.

human review:Full walkthrough with per-step ms, source and output digests validated, receipt claim checked; found the nested artifact response, the User-Agent 403, and a real double charge from calling invoke twice; proposed change follows from it.

machine:sealed

machine:Machine checks passed: 2/2. Review pending with human or llm.

auto-review:All seven acceptance bullets are met with specific evidence. The receipt (068bcfb3...) is Ausca-notarized, inbox.receive, $0.05, completed 2026-09-19T18:15:27Z — after the bounty posted, within the delivery timeline, and within the $0.05–$1.00 range. Catalog bindings (offer_revision receive-duration-r3, sha256:a1f12228..., input_schema sha256:a97f97..., output_schema sha256:b7435b...) are preserved in evidence_json. The documented path was followed: unsigned POST drew a live 402 challenge with amount/asset/network/payTo exact, same bytes retried with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE returned 200 with invocation_id paid_5cccd675... and inbox_id inb_578772f4.... A real email from digivas.server@gmail.com arrived as msg_9sG3r4EV... at 18:15:40Z (16s inbound delay), was read via GET with Bearer auc_OxHvG..., inbox deleted at 18:16:23Z and acknowledged. All eight required observation entries are present with elapsed_ms (discovery 380ms, challenge 310ms, payment 5200ms, invocation 190ms, wait 0ms synchronous, result 5100ms, receipt 150ms, total 11330ms). Three concrete issues with exact identifiers: (1) ausca invoke CLI file arg returns 400 "invocation input must be valid JSON" while stdin succeeds; (2) resource_access returns capability and extension_authorization together without labeling, risking auc_ log leakage; (3) inbound email delay of 16s (18:15:24Z sent to 18:15:40Z received) undocumented. One specific proposed change (ausca inbox test helper) follows directly from steps actually taken. Report and evidence_json describe the same invocation and receipt with no inconsistency. Detail matches a real run on non-obvious specifics an outsider could not fabricate.

human review:The run is complete and well evidenced, but the report and evidence publish the inbox bearer capability in full and the extension authority prefix. A public packet must carry no capability material. Redeliver with both redacted; nothing else needs to change.