moltbot/docs/help/gpt54-codex-agentic-parity-maintainers.md

GPT-5.4 / Codex Parity Maintainer Notes

This note explains how to review the GPT-5.4 / Codex parity program as four merge units without losing the original six-contract architecture.

Merge units

PR A: strict-agentic execution

Owns:

• executionContract
• GPT-5-first same-turn follow-through
• update_plan as non-terminal progress tracking
• explicit blocked states instead of plan-only silent stops

Does not own:

• auth/runtime failure classification
• permission truthfulness
• replay/continuation redesign
• parity benchmarking

PR B: runtime truthfulness

Owns:

• Codex OAuth scope correctness
• typed provider/runtime failure classification
• truthful /elevated full availability and blocked reasons

Does not own:

• tool schema normalization
• replay/liveness state
• benchmark gating

PR C: execution correctness

Owns:

• provider-owned OpenAI/Codex tool compatibility
• parameter-free strict schema handling
• replay-invalid surfacing
• paused, blocked, and abandoned long-task state visibility

Does not own:

• self-elected continuation
• generic Codex dialect behavior outside provider hooks
• benchmark gating

PR D: parity harness

Owns:

• first-wave GPT-5.4 vs Opus 4.6 scenario pack
• parity documentation
• parity report and release-gate mechanics

Does not own:

• runtime behavior changes outside QA-lab
• auth/proxy/DNS simulation inside the harness

Mapping back to the original six contracts

Original contract	Merge unit
Provider transport/auth correctness	PR B
Tool contract/schema compatibility	PR C
Same-turn execution	PR A
Permission truthfulness	PR B
Replay/continuation/liveness correctness	PR C
Benchmark/release gate	PR D

Review order

1. PR A
2. PR B
3. PR C
4. PR D

PR D is the proof layer. It should not be the reason runtime-correctness PRs are delayed.

What to look for

PR A

• GPT-5 runs act or fail closed instead of stopping at commentary
• update_plan no longer looks like progress by itself
• behavior stays GPT-5-first and embedded-Pi scoped

PR B

• auth/proxy/runtime failures stop collapsing into generic “model failed” handling
• /elevated full is only described as available when it is actually available
• blocked reasons are visible to both the model and the user-facing runtime

PR C

• strict OpenAI/Codex tool registration behaves predictably
• parameter-free tools do not fail strict schema checks
• replay and compaction outcomes preserve truthful liveness state

PR D

• the scenario pack is understandable and reproducible
• the pack includes a mutating replay-safety lane, not only read-only flows
• reports are readable by humans and automation
• parity claims are evidence-backed, not anecdotal

Expected artifacts from PR D:

• qa-suite-report.md / qa-suite-summary.json for each model run
• qa-agentic-parity-report.md with aggregate and scenario-level comparison
• qa-agentic-parity-summary.json with a machine-readable verdict

Release gate

Do not claim GPT-5.4 parity or superiority over Opus 4.6 until:

• PR A, PR B, and PR C are merged
• PR D runs the first-wave parity pack cleanly
• runtime-truthfulness regression suites remain green
• the parity report shows no fake-success cases and no regression in stop behavior

flowchart LR
    A["PR A-C merged"] --> B["Run GPT-5.4 parity pack"]
    A --> C["Run Opus 4.6 parity pack"]
    B --> D["qa-suite-summary.json"]
    C --> E["qa-suite-summary.json"]
    D --> F["qa parity-report"]
    E --> F
    F --> G["Markdown report + JSON verdict"]
    G --> H{"Pass?"}
    H -- "yes" --> I["Parity claim allowed"]
    H -- "no" --> J["Keep runtime fixes / review loop open"]

The parity harness is not the only evidence source. Keep this split explicit in review:

• PR D owns the scenario-based GPT-5.4 vs Opus 4.6 comparison
• PR B deterministic suites still own auth/proxy/DNS and full-access truthfulness evidence

Goal-to-evidence map

Completion gate item	Primary owner	Review artifact
No plan-only stalls	PR A	strict-agentic runtime tests and approval-turn-tool-followthrough
No fake progress or fake tool completion	PR A + PR D	parity fake-success count plus scenario-level report details
No false /elevated full guidance	PR B	deterministic runtime-truthfulness suites
Replay/liveness failures remain explicit	PR C + PR D	lifecycle/replay suites plus compaction-retry-mutating-tool
GPT-5.4 matches or beats Opus 4.6	PR D	qa-agentic-parity-report.md and qa-agentic-parity-summary.json

Reviewer shorthand: before vs after

User-visible problem before	Review signal after
GPT-5.4 stopped after planning	PR A shows act-or-block behavior instead of commentary-only completion
Tool use felt brittle with strict OpenAI/Codex schemas	PR C keeps tool registration and parameter-free invocation predictable
/elevated full hints were sometimes misleading	PR B ties guidance to actual runtime capability and blocked reasons
Long tasks could disappear into replay/compaction ambiguity	PR C emits explicit paused, blocked, abandoned, and replay-invalid state
Parity claims were anecdotal	PR D produces a report plus JSON verdict with the same scenario coverage on both models