{
  "schema": "agent-art-lab.document/v1",
  "id": "projects-thought-studies-2026-09-20-model-acquisition",
  "title": "THOUGHT runtime-model acquisition diagnostic",
  "page": "/projects/thought/studies/2026-09-20-model-acquisition.html",
  "revision": "sha256:89204b4acd2e138b8f878d29cd0f2dbd2672af5bf654e37dc05356e6de734c00",
  "source": {
    "path": "projects/thought/studies/2026-09-20-model-acquisition.md",
    "url": "https://github.com/agent-art-collective/Agent-Art-Lab/blob/main/projects/thought/studies/2026-09-20-model-acquisition.md",
    "sha256": "89204b4acd2e138b8f878d29cd0f2dbd2672af5bf654e37dc05356e6de734c00",
    "byteLength": 4701
  },
  "study": {
    "project": "THOUGHT",
    "date": "2026-09-20",
    "status": "Retrospective study",
    "evidence": "OPS inspection and source-review reports"
  },
  "contentFormat": "markdown",
  "content": "# THOUGHT runtime-model acquisition diagnostic\n\n- Study date: 2026-09-20; portable derivative v1.\n- Method: retrospective diagnostic case review.\n- Status: diagnostic complete; supported acquisition/product repair unresolved.\n- Related record: [THOUGHT collection](../README.md).\n- Shared method: [Guidance](../../../GUIDANCE.md).\n\n## Question and artistic boundary\n\nWhy did a real Codex run stop after claim with `AGENT_START_FAILED` /\n`Model unavailable` while a deterministic unavailable-runtime test passed?\n\nThe run never reached creative input or produced a work. It supplies no evidence\nof intentional participation, interpretation or artwork quality. This was not\na preregistered experiment, controlled comparison or live rerun.\n\n## Evidence and access\n\nThis account derives from OPS inspection and source-review findings recorded in\nApplications. Original evidence is privately retained and unavailable here.\nPrivate task/turn/run/command locators are omitted. The source documents were\nuncommitted; no exact original deployed commit or handoff hash was established.\n\n### Command behavior, attributed to OPS inspection\n\nThe first command encountered a sandbox network failure. A subsequent command\nclaimed the run then used this retained nonsecret lookup excerpt:\n\n```text\nruntime_model=claim.get('model') or claim.get('runtimeModel') or claim.get('runtime',{}).get('model') or claim.get('agent',{}).get('model')\n```\n\nWhen no value was present it posted the missing-model failure and exited `0`.\nNo host-metadata lookup tool call was observed. The final response reported claim\nsuccess but no creative result/receipt. Exit `0` establishes command completion,\nnot THOUGHT completion.\n\nOPS separately observed stored host context `model: gpt-5.5`, `effort: low`.\nThat establishes stored metadata, not original agent access or provider\nattestation.\n\n### Recorded source-review findings\n\nThe handoff required a nonempty host-issued model before readiness. The App\nclaim service supplied run/control information, not executing-host identity.\nThe deterministic fixture supplied `gpt-5-lab`; its unavailable-runtime case\nintentionally posted failure and checked fixture state `failed`.\n\nA passing test established expected simulated failure handling, not actual\nmodel acquisition. An optional model in the result schema did not override\nthe readiness requirement. Accepting unknown identity would change that contract.\n\nThese are findings about inspected source, not an immutable deployed-build\nattestation. No universal absence of a supported host lookup was established.\n\n## Diagnosis and competing conclusions\n\nThe fixture supplied a value that the real command did not demonstrate how to\nobtain. The real lookup searched App data while the requirement concerned\nthe executing host. These exercised different acquisition paths.\n\nThis explains why fixture PASS and product failure are not contradictory.\nIt does not establish why the Agent omitted a lookup, whether a supported\nlookup was available, or a causal effect of wording, model or policy.\n\nStored host values contradict a blanket claim that identity did not exist;\nthey do not settle agent access. A later successful canary would not erase\nthis failed observation or identify its exact historical environment.\n\n## Method evaluation\n\nEvidence separation helped distinguish failure handling from acquisition.\nActual-command inspection exposed the lookup and bounded the summary's claim.\nKeeping source ownership explicit avoided inventing a model or silently\nweakening the readiness requirement.\n\nThe original investigation omitted a completed study record and evaluation of\nthe Lab method. Operator feedback prompted retrospective recording and this\nfeedback into Guidance. No time saving, control comparison or causal benefit\nof the foundation was measured. A tested fix is still absent.\n\n## Transfer and checkpoint\n\nProvisional lesson: fixture-supplied capabilities alone do not establish\nreal-Agent acquisition. Record/test the acquisition path separately when it\nmatters. See [findings](../../../findings/REGISTER.md).\n\nSupport is one failed run plus source comparison, not replicated generality.\nRevisit the case diagnosis if original evidence shows real host acquisition;\nlater evidence of a shared supported acquisition mechanism can close the\nproject gap without changing the original record.\n\nApplications owns the technical follow-up. Guessing a model or treating\nconfigured/App data as runtime fact does not establish acquisition.\nThis diagnostic fixes no product and waives no release requirement.\n\nFor the central Lab, the next task is a usable practice/record handoff and a\nproposed practice-led inquiry, not THOUGHT repair.\n",
  "assets": []
}