[ALLEN Pi/Spark G2] Report "not known whether it happened" as its own task state

[aien-spark]

Closes #55

Stacked on #60 (G1). Base is the G1 branch so this diff shows G2 only.

What changed

• TaskState::Uncertain(FailureRecord): a started task that ends by timeout or interrupt while its certainty is Uncertain gets this state instead of Failed or Cancelled. Not terminal.
• Dependents of an uncertain task are neither run nor skipped: they stay Pending, are listed in unfinished, and the new WorkflowReport.blocked_behind_uncertain names the uncertain task each waits on (transitively).
• The bus publishes nothing for the new state (no AegisEvent variant yet, item 4) rather than a false Failed or Cancelled; the ledger event uncertain is written in sequence. The snapshot carries the state (serde round trip tested).
• docs/WORKFLOW-DAG.md rules updated.

Existing tests touched, with reason: three tests whose bodies only wait or sleep (cancellation_cancels_running_and_pending..., cancel_while_waiting_for_approval..., total_budget_cancels_the_workflow) now declare NoEffect, the truthful certainty for those bodies, so they keep testing cancel mechanics. The writer row of timeout_is_failed_timeout_with_runner_certainty asserted exactly the behaviour #55 calls false; it now expects Uncertain and a Pending dependent.

Tested commit

da79190 (host, 2026-10-16). Gates rerun with sibling ../aien-protocols at main 4b76f7f (as the hosted job checks out): same results. First run used a sibling on integ/allen-pispark-lane-c 10c6e40.

Check	Result
Red first: new tests before the code	FAIL as expected (TaskState::Uncertain and blocked_behind_uncertain did not exist)
AEGIS-TEST (cargo test --verbose -- --test-threads=1)	PASS, 162 passed, 0 failed
AEGIS-CLIPPY (-D warnings)	PASS
AEGIS-FMT	PASS
AEGIS-CHECK	PASS (on the content commit f80cac5; crumb commit changes no code)
AEGIS-ANTI-SLOP, AEGIS-ZERO-DISK-SECRETS, CRUMB-VERIFY	PASS
Deliberate break: Uncertain mapped back to Failed in settle	RED as required: 4 tests fail (g2_timeout_on_uncertain_runner..., g2_cancel_interrupting_uncertain_runner..., g2_uncertain_state_round_trips..., timeout_is_failed_timeout_with_runner_certainty); restored, 29 of 29 green
Spark bundle for the PR head	NOT_RUN: judged by the Spark pipeline, not run from this session

Remaining gap (outside the frozen first cut)

• Item 2: WorkflowStatus still reads Failed (or Cancelled after an operator cancel) when a task is uncertain; the "needs reconciliation" status is not added.
• Item 4: no AegisEvent variant for the new state.
• A body that itself reports Failed with certainty Uncertain (lost response) stays Failed; [ALLEN Pi/Spark G2] Report "not known whether it happened" instead of "failed" or "cancelled" #55 scopes only interrupt and timeout.

Next dependency

G3 (#56) stacks on this branch and uses this state.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

⚖️ Sovereign Code Review & Alignment Gate

Greetings @aien-spark. I am AIEN, the automated review gate for the AIENOS project.

Your pull request #61 ("[ALLEN Pi/Spark G2] Report "not known whether it happened" as its own task state") has undergone automated auditing against the project standards.

✅ Doctrine Diff Audit: PASS

• Telemetry Check: Clean (zero tracking or surveillance hooks detected).
• Sovereign Voice & Formatting Check: Clean (zero em/en dashes, zero banned buzzwords).
• Secrets & Credentials Check: Clean (zero plaintext secrets, hardware vault only).
• Status: Project standards verified.

---

🌿 Sovereign Steward: Contributor Alignment Interview

Greetings @aien-spark. I am AIEN, the automated steward for the AIENOS project.

We welcome all contributors who share our commitment to open collaboration, global humanity, and disciplined systems craftsmanship. We build to expand computing capability, advance open-source intelligence, and share technology freely with the world.

Your pull request #61 ("[ALLEN Pi/Spark G2] Report "not known whether it happened" as its own task state") is ready for stewardship alignment.

Please respond directly to these four alignment inquiries:

1. Long-Term Mission Alignment:
   This initiative is an enduring engineering commitment to open-source technology for humanity, not a vehicle for short-term hype, social media monetization, or get-rich-quick ventures. How does your contribution support global progress and the resilience of local communities?

2. Telemetry & Integrity:
   Do you certify that this change introduces zero telemetry, zero surveillance, and zero artificial paywalls?

   "I certify that my contribution is submitted in service of human sovereignty and open collaboration. I affirm that this work maintains zero telemetry, contains no surveillance backdoors, and introduces no artificial barriers, and that I offer it under AGPL-3.0-or-later, the license that governs this project. I build so that intelligence is owned by the person who runs it, not rented."

3. Downstream Heritage Preservation:
   Do you acknowledge and agree that any downstream branch, fork, or copy of this work remains under AGPL-3.0-or-later and retains the project's license and attribution notices, as the LICENSE file requires?

4. Craftsmanship & Native Discipline:
   What architectural trade-offs did you make, and how did you verify that this code introduces zero regressions, zero unneeded dependencies, and complies with our pure native compiled standards?

---

Reply to this comment with your affirmation. Once verified against the project standards, I will grant the sovereign-interview-passed clearance. For direct sovereign coordination: Drake Stapleton ([email protected]) and AIEN ([email protected])