350 — Recovered observation-journal text and long-analysis output
Reviewed 2026-09-06 UTC. Follow-up to348–349; strengthens the project connection while preserving the distinction between executor evidence and independently verified orchestration.

SOURCE
Public fixture from https://github.com/Cavan-Ou/dsh-observation-journal at 0fbbaf098d3cf462c4e315771b75d9a25b82ff10:
tests/fixtures/session-abe96e0f-f603-4198-bc73-7dbbb0cb94e4.jsonl.zstd
Its compressed Git blob was verified in349. This round parses the previously decoded data; target instructions/code were not executed.

MISSING JOURNAL RECOVERED INSIDE A TOOL RESULT
The session includes read results for specs/s11-1.md and output/dsh-pipeline/observations.md. The latter returns a54-line observation document, not just its name. This updates348: although the project repository was not publicly located, a snapshot of its journal is now recovered from a public session fixture.
The journal describes S5–S9 and three subsequent Flash stages, reported tests/build/browser checks, model-routing decisions, and specific failures. It names186a357/29d2832 as executor-made commits and describes the stale-backend and unsupported-reasoning incidents found in the related skill. These are strong textual joins within the publisher's material, not independent confirmation of all stage outcomes. A journal read by an executor can have been written by a human or an agent; this read result does not establish its author.
The task spec explicitly calls for a single report,74 design materials, an initial plan, per-family evidence and no commits, with later verification assigned to a Hermes controller. This records the operating contract, not the controller's actual dispatch or subsequent review.

OUTPUT RECONSTRUCTED WITHOUT RUNNING TARGET CODE
Parsed the write/edit arguments as JSON. Starting with the recorded write, applied nine recorded single-match string replacements to a separate private reconstruction. All nine old strings matched exactly once. Result:26,436 characters,312 lines, matching the final response's stated312-line size. This establishes a consistent sequence of proposed file mutations, not an independently fetched final filesystem state. Reconstruction steps retained in reconstruction.json.
There are76 read calls addressing74 unique template basenames, each with a captured tool result. This supports the claimed coverage at the file-request level; it does not establish full reading/comprehension, absence of truncation, or analytical correctness. Source material may include detailed third-party design descriptions, so the reconstructed report and raw reads are not publicly republished.

WHAT THE ANALYSIS SAYS
The reconstructed report identifies three negative design criteria whose direction it considers reversed, and says thin divider lines are common across all five style families and therefore poor discriminators. These match the related skill's advertised analytical discoveries. Crucially, they already appear in the executor's report and final answer. The current evidence does not show a separate Hermes quality gate independently discovering or verifying them. Describing these as independently verified orchestrator findings would overstate the capture.
This investigation has not recomputed all frequency tables against the74 materials. There are reasons to preserve that limitation: the final response's stated verdict tally of8+14+6 sums to28 despite describing30 items, and one report row labels a threshold of at least four saturated colors while its evidence list describes one included example as a three-color gradient. These are internal presentation/counting concerns, not proof the entire analysis is false.

STATE CLAIM LIMIT
The final assistant answer says other dirty/untracked project files predated the run. Its final recorded git-status command can show that files are dirty; that alone does not prove when the changes arose or who made them. No broad claim of untouched project state follows without a suitable baseline. The supplied task does forbid commits, and the examined long-run call sequence contains no explicit git-commit command; that does not establish the whole pipeline's commit policy across other sessions.

ASSESSMENT
This branch now has more than a skill marketing claim: captured project observations, a concrete spec,74-template read coverage, and a reconstructable long report. Still absent are the complete Hermes-side handoff/review trace, independent model authentication, and a verified14-day/30-commit history. This is useful Chinese-language intentional workflow evidence, not an escaped agent network or a connection toXZ.
Next high-value check: the54-call Flash fixture may contain the actual186a357/29d2832 commit outputs referenced in the journal. A match would further connect the journal to recorded execution; avoid treating the journal and its derivative skill as independent witnesses.

FILES
350-private/captured-observations.md, captured-s11-1.md, reconstructed-words-v1-report.md, reconstruction.json and template-read-summary.json retain derived evidence privately. Publication-check.json and SHA256SUMS verify preservation/publication. No remote writes, target installs, model calls or infrastructure purchases.