Run 9d0e1c70

Blocker — sixth consecutive same-mode failure; R5 escalation rule must be honored

This is the **sixth** dispatch attempt for experiment #363, and the **fourth in a row** to exhibit the identical failure mode: pod reports `RUNNING` on the team account, then disappears from the account-scoped pod list shortly after. ### Cumulative failure ledger - retry-1: `SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT` - retry-2: `INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR` on `podFindAndDeployOnDemand` - retry-3: `Pod not found in account=team` after ~14 min RUNNING - retry-4: `Pod not found in account=team` after ~2 min RUNNING - retry-5: `Pod not found in account=team` after ~7 min RUNNING - **retry-6 (this run, `m1ayhl6nsbxw04`): `Pod not found in account=team` after ~1 min RUNNING** Four consecutive post-`RUNNING` disappearances against the team account is conclusively not transient capacity flake. It is consistent with a RunPod-side or team-account-side state issue (account-scoping bug, billing/rate-limit eviction, or stale pod-list cache). ### Why I am refusing to auto-recover The approved plan for #363 contains a pre-registered escalation rule (**R5** in the existing `planJson` section "Blocker — escalate per plan's pre-registered R5 rule"): > if retry-4 also disappears after `RUNNING`, escalate to a manual SSH-into-pod check during the next attempt rather than spending more auto-recoveries on it. That trigger condition was met two retries ago. The previous Claude Code run filed this same blocker after retry-5 and was overridden. retry-6 reproduced the exact same failure, providing yet another data point that auto-recovery cannot resolve this. Continuing the loop would (a) violate the operator's now thrice-confirmed pre-registered escalation rule, (b) waste another dispatch cycle on a failure mode that has now reproduced four times in a row on the same account, and (c) overstep the planner role — the planner is forbidden from launching pods, and the plan is already approved and unchanged. The planner-role instructions also explicitly say: *"If the root cause is … unavailable infrastructure … or another issue you cannot safely fix, stop with a concise blocker that includes the evidence and the exact next manual action."* This is unavailable infrastructure. ### Exact next manual action The operator must pick one of the following before any further auto-recovery is permitted. A and C can run in parallel; B is the cheapest single diagnostic. **A — Manual-SSH-monitored dispatch (plan's preferred next step).** Dispatch manually (`pnpm runpod:dispatch` on the runner VM using the existing spec from #363's `planJson`, or via the RunPod dashboard). Within 60 s of `RUNNING`, SSH into the pod and tail the bootstrap log. If the pod disappears from the team account while the SSH session is still alive, that distinguishes "RunPod-side account eviction" from "Sagan polling lost the pod" — these have very different fixes. **B — Account fallback test.** The plan's `substitution_policy.account` already allows `personal`. Edit the policy's `prefer` from `team` to `personal` and re-run pod-provisioner. If the pod survives on personal but not on team, the issue is team-account-specific (billing, rate limit, per-team RunPod state) and the next step is a support ticket against that account. If it disappears on personal too, the issue is broader. **C — File a RunPod support ticket** referencing the six pod IDs across the six attempts (most recent: `m1ayhl6nsbxw04`, `36xpkdt2tumzxb`, `87xq2h88dmg5j5`), asking why these pods reported `RUNNING` and then vanished from the account-scoped pod list within 1–14 minutes. Worth filing in parallel with A or B regardless. ### What I am not changing - **The experiment plan itself is unchanged.** Design, hypothesis, prediction, kill criteria, compute estimate, and runpod-spec in `planJson` are all still correct. This is RunPod infrastructure, not methodology — there is nothing for the planner to redraft. - **No critique loop.** The plan's existing R5 notes already cover this exact path; a fourth consecutive same-mode failure adds evidence but no new question for critics. - **No file edits. No pod dispatch. No compute spent.** ### Evidence pointer - This orchestrator run: auto-recovery for `6e8a0593-c1f6-45b3-9dd0-7a89618006df` - Disappeared pod (retry-6): `m1ayhl6nsbxw04` (team account, ~1 min RUNNING before disappearance) - Disappeared pod (retry-5): `36xpkdt2tumzxb` (team account, ~7 min RUNNING) - Disappeared pod (retry-4): `87xq2h88dmg5j5` (team account, ~2 min RUNNING) - Prior orchestrator runs that filed the same blocker: `f86281ce-da03-4f60-871a-a8723393c758` (after retry-4), and the planner run that immediately preceded retry-6 (after retry-5) **The operator must advance this experiment manually per the plan's R5 escalation rule before any further auto-recovery is allowed.** Four consecutive same-mode failures after the rule was first invoked is overwhelming evidence that auto-recovery cannot resolve this.