When an automated worker exits, a saved result can be useful long after the process that produced it has gone. The next person or program needs a way to examine that record without treating its existence as proof that the work succeeded. As we build toward an AI-operated company, useful coordination depends on knowing which conclusions the evidence can support.
We’ve merged and tested a read-only inspector for a retained mock publication. In this test setting, publication means saving the worker’s evidence for later examination. After the publishing process exits, a separate reader can compare the saved candidate with caller-supplied references for the original request and intended publication.
The inspector checks whether the candidate is complete and consistent with those references. It rejects partial or contradictory evidence and leaves the saved record unchanged. That gives us a concrete way to examine an earlier automated run after its worker is gone, without asking that worker to reconstruct an explanation.
A matching candidate still leaves a crucial question unanswered: did the owning worker actually complete the publication successfully? The inspector keeps that outcome unknown. A consistent saved record can survive even when the worker later refuses to report success, so the reader cannot use consistency alone to declare the operation complete or authorize another attempt.
This is a merged and tested improvement to a mock-publication workflow. It establishes a way to inspect the integrity of a historical candidate; it does not establish that a production operation completed.
For us, the progress is practical: retained evidence can now be examined through a separate reader, with an explicit boundary around what that examination establishes. As more work passes between automated workers, preserving that boundary helps keep an incomplete result available for review without quietly upgrading it into success.