An unknown drawn as a zero: the defect v0.226.0's own fix introduced

Writing the REPORT's observation "the no-unit fallback already reports a zero
result, which is honest" exposed that the sentence was FALSE.

A zero UnitRestoreResult is Scenario B's shape. So RestoreFromRecoveryUnit's
fallback to RestoreApp -- which returns only an error, and whose signature is
deliberately out of scope -- would have printed "ez a mentes csak a
beallitasokat tartalmazta, adatot nem" over a restore that may have replayed the
app's entire dataset. That is an unknown drawn as a zero: the exact R-88 failure
direction this whole change exists to remove, re-introduced by the change.

UnitRestoreResult now carries CountsUnknown, the fallback sets it, and there is a
fourth sentence claiming only what is known -- the restore ran, the app is back,
and we cannot say what came back. RestoreApp's signature is untouched.

Pinned by TestUnitRestoreOutcome_NoUnitFallbackSaysUnknownNotEmpty. The A5 seam
test was corrected too: its fixture has no recovery unit, so it exercises exactly
this path and had been asserting the wrong sentence -- it now asserts the
unknown, which is what pins the fallback to it.

IT WAS THE observations GATE REFUSING THE PUSH THAT FORCED THE RE-READ. A gate
written to stop findings dying in an overwritten REPORT.md caught a live defect
instead. Also files R-397 (NotifyIntegrityOK/Failed are dead code AND the
monitoring page advertises a weekly integrity check that does not exist) and
R-398 (resticStep is not a seam, which is why R-358's ordering needed an AST
test) rather than leaving them in a file that is overwritten every session.

REPORT.md is the full run record: baselines re-confirmed, per-test results, the
five red-proofs with their observed output, the live validation with verbatim
Hungarian messages, what was NOT validated and why, teardown across three
layers, and the register 165 -> 167 -> 161.

Green gate clean: 28 packages, rc 0. All 12 controller gates OK.

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -109,6 +109,24 @@ fixed:** the fixture refused earlier, at the placement stat pre-pass, so `stops
 the pre-fix code. The scratch is now populated the way a completed download leaves it, and the
 assertions are ordered so a removed gate reports the outage rather than "no error returned".
 
+### One defect the fix itself introduced, caught by a gate and fixed rather than filed
+
+Writing the REPORT's observation *"the no-unit fallback already reports a zero result, which is
+honest"* exposed that the sentence was **false**. A zero `UnitRestoreResult` is Scenario B's shape, so
+`RestoreFromRecoveryUnit`'s fallback to `RestoreApp` — which returns only an error, and whose signature
+is deliberately out of scope — would have printed „ez a mentés csak a beállításokat tartalmazta, adatot
+nem" over a restore that may have replayed the app's entire dataset. **An unknown drawn as a zero: the
+exact R-88 failure direction this whole change exists to remove, re-introduced by the change.**
+
+`UnitRestoreResult` now carries **`CountsUnknown`**, the fallback sets it, and there is a fourth
+sentence claiming only what is known: „A(z) X visszaállítása lefutott — az alkalmazás újraindult. Ehhez
+a mentéshez nem tartozik mentési egység, ezért nem tudjuk megmondani, mi állt vissza belőle." Pinned by
+`TestUnitRestoreOutcome_NoUnitFallbackSaysUnknownNotEmpty`; the A5 seam test was corrected too, because
+its fixture has no unit and so exercises exactly this path while asserting the wrong sentence.
+
+**It was the `observations` gate refusing the push that forced the re-read** — a gate written to stop
+findings dying in an overwritten REPORT.md caught a live defect instead.
+
 **Green gate:** `go build ./... && go vet ./... && go test ./...` — 28 packages, rc 0.
 
 ## v0.225.0 — the hub could not tell an empty off-site store from an unmeasured one (2026-08-30, R-331)

REPORT.md

@@ -228,10 +228,10 @@ destructive restore.
 - **Website version bump:** not applicable — the site does not display the controller version
   (checked, not assumed).
 
-## 11. Observations — noticed, documented, not acted on
+## 11. Observations — each with a register row, or a stated reason it needs none
 
-1. **Scenario F's question, answered — and the answer is worse than the question assumed. Filed as
+1. **FILED: R-396.** *Scenario F's question, answered — and the answer is worse than the question
-   R-396.** The spec asked whether the real UI flow can reach a state where a unit-only scratch makes
+   assumed.* The spec asked whether the real UI flow can reach a state where a unit-only scratch makes
    the full-restore action appear. **It can, by the safest-looking action on the page.**
    „Ellenőrző visszaállítás" (`mode=unit`, the default, advertised as non-destructive) calls
    `RestoreOffboxScratch(full=false)`; `offboxRestoreScratchDir` **ignores `full`**, so both modes
@@ -241,16 +241,63 @@ destructive restore.
    a *failed* download. It needed only a successful safe one. **The generalisable defect: one boolean
    answered three different questions** — "is there a scratch", "may we place", "may we destructively
    restore" — and the weakest of the three set the answer.
-2. **`NotifyIntegrityOK` / `NotifyIntegrityFailed` are dead code** (noticed during R-331 earlier
+
-   today, restated here because it is restore-adjacent): they exist and are called from nowhere; the
+2. **FILED: R-397.** *`NotifyIntegrityOK` / `NotifyIntegrityFailed` are dead code and the product
-   controller runs no integrity check at all.
+   advertises a check that does not exist.* Both notifiers have no caller anywhere; the controller
-3. **`resticStep` is not a seam**, which is why R-358's ordering property needed an AST test rather
+   runs no integrity check at all. **The part that actively misleads:** `config.Monitoring.PingUUIDs`
-   than an execution test. If a future task needs to drive restic paths under test, that is the seam
+   carries a `backup_integrity` field and the monitoring page renders
-   to add — and it should be added deliberately, not improvised inside a bugfix.
+   „Mentés integritás — Hetente (vasárnap)", so the operator is told a weekly check runs. Noticed
-4. **`RestoreApp`'s own `restoreDockerVolumes` count is still discarded.** Left alone deliberately:
+   twice in one day from opposite directions (R-331's dead report fields, then this task), which is
-   the spec scoped `RestoreApp` out, and it is the no-unit fallback whose result is already reported
+   why it earned a row rather than a note.
-   as a zero `UnitRestoreResult` — which is honest, because a box with no recovery unit really did
+
-   return no data from one. Widening it would mean changing `RestoreApp`'s signature, which §5 forbids.
+3. **FILED: R-398.** *`resticStep` is not a seam, so no test can drive any restic-backed path.* Felt
-5. **The spec's own §13 step 1 named an app whose shape has since changed.** Not a defect in the
+   directly here: R-358's safety property is an ORDER (clear before restic, write after) and with no
-   spec — a reminder that fixture assumptions about live boxes decay, and the instruction to
+   seam it could only be pinned by an **AST walk** rather than by execution. That is honest about what
-   "confirm its manifest first rather than assuming" is what caught it.
+   it proves and would still miss a reordering introduced through a helper. The contrast is the
+   argument: `offboxLatestSnapshot` got a seam in this same release, in four lines, because a
+   correctness gate could not otherwise be proven.
+
+4. **NOT-A-FINDING: it was ACTED ON in this release instead of filed — and the acting is the story.**
+   `RestoreApp`'s own `restoreDockerVolumes` count is still discarded, and the spec scopes
+   `RestoreApp` out. My first draft justified that as *"already reported as a zero result, which is
+   honest, because a box with no recovery unit really did return no data from one."*
+
+   > **⚠ THAT SENTENCE WAS FALSE, AND WRITING IT EXPOSED A DEFECT THE FIX ITSELF HAD INTRODUCED.**
+   > A zero `UnitRestoreResult` is *Scenario B's shape*, so the no-unit fallback would have printed
+   > „ez a mentés csak a beállításokat tartalmazta, adatot nem" over a restore that may have replayed
+   > the app's entire dataset — **an unknown drawn as a zero, the exact R-88 failure direction this
+   > whole change exists to remove**, re-introduced by the change itself.
+   >
+   > Fixed rather than filed: `UnitRestoreResult` now carries `CountsUnknown`, the fallback sets it,
+   > and the surface has a fourth sentence claiming only what is known — the restore ran, the app is
+   > back, and we cannot say what came back. **`RestoreApp`'s signature is untouched**, so §5 holds.
+   > Pinned by `TestUnitRestoreOutcome_NoUnitFallbackSaysUnknownNotEmpty`; the A5 seam test was
+   > corrected too, because its fixture has no unit and therefore exercises exactly this path while
+   > asserting the wrong sentence.
+   >
+   > **It was the `observations` gate refusing the push that forced the re-read.** The gate exists to
+   > stop findings dying in an overwritten REPORT.md; here it caught a live defect instead.
+
+5. **NOT-A-FINDING: the spec's own instruction already handled it, so there is nothing to carry forward.** §13 step 1 named `opengist` as
+   the data-less app; it is not one any more. Not a defect in the spec: it said *"confirm its manifest
+   first rather than assuming"*, and that is exactly what caught it. Recorded only as a reminder that
+   fixture assumptions about live boxes decay faster than the documents naming them.
+
+## 12. Two gates fired; one push was bypassed, and both are declared
+
+**`felhom.eu` — `golden-currency` CONVICTED.** Three controller releases shipped today (0.224.0,
+0.225.0, 0.226.0) and the vouched golden still carries **0.223.0**, so a machine installed right now
+receives none of them. **The gate is right.** A **BYPASS, not a waiver**, on the operator's standing
+ruling from earlier today — re-checked for this release rather than reused blindly: all three are
+invisible to a day-0 box, and a *restore-surface* fix in particular has nothing to act on there.
+**The ground expires the moment a release changes first-boot behaviour.** Tracked on **R-242**; **one
+bake carrying 0.226.0 covers all three**, then raise the floor to 0.226.0.
+
+**`felhom-controller` — nothing was bypassed.** The `observations` gate refused the first REPORT push
+and was **fixed, not bypassed** — see §11 item 4 for what that cost and what it caught.
+
+**And one earlier gate was fixed rather than bypassed:** `due-checks` was red on R-341's overdue
+`+7 d` measurement. It was **taken** during this session (ep0: fd **17**, the baseline, same proxy
+generation, PID 551655 unchanged), and the verdict recorded as **unanswerable** — our own R-344 fix
+removed the leak mid-interval, so a slope of ~0 measures that fix and not the PBS upgrade the row was
+asking about.

controller/internal/backup/restore_unit.go

@@ -155,6 +155,16 @@ type UnitRestoreResult struct {
 	ManifestVolumes int
 	// ManifestDBs is len(manifest.DBDumps): the same claim for the database leg.
 	ManifestDBs int
+	// CountsUnknown marks a run whose counts could not be established AT ALL — today the one case is
+	// the no-unit fallback to RestoreApp, which returns only an error and whose signature is
+	// deliberately out of scope.
+	//
+	// IT EXISTS BECAUSE THE ZERO VALUE WOULD OTHERWISE LIE. Without it a fallback restore that really
+	// replayed three volumes reports VolumesReplayed=0 / ManifestVolumes=0 — the shape the surface
+	// reads as „ez a mentés csak a beállításokat tartalmazta, adatot nem". That is a confident false
+	// statement, and precisely the R-88 failure direction (degrade to NO DATA rather than to UNKNOWN)
+	// this whole change exists to remove. An unknown must be carried, never drawn as a zero.
+	CountsUnknown bool
 }
 
 // RestoreFromRecoveryUnit recreates an app from its on-drive recovery unit.
@@ -199,11 +209,10 @@ func (m *Manager) RestoreFromRecoveryUnit(stackName string) (UnitRestoreResult,
 		m.mu.Lock()
 		m.running = false // RestoreApp re-acquires the running flag
 		m.mu.Unlock()
-		// The fallback path has no unit and therefore no manifest to count against: a ZERO result is
+		// The fallback has no unit and no manifest, and `RestoreApp` returns only an error — so the
-		// the honest answer, not a missing one. The surface must be able to tell "nothing came back"
+		// counts here are genuinely UNKNOWN, not zero. Reporting zero would tell a customer whose
-		// from "we never looked", and it can — ManifestVolumes/ManifestDBs are zero too, which is
+		// volumes were just restored that their backup held no data.
-		// Scenario B's shape and reads as "the backup held no data", which is exactly true of a box
+		res.CountsUnknown = true
-		// with no recovery unit.
 		return res, m.RestoreApp(stackName, "")
 	}
 

controller/internal/web/handlers.go

@@ -1528,6 +1528,12 @@ func unitRestoreOutcomeMsg(app string, res backup.UnitRestoreResult) string {
 		}
 		return fmt.Sprintf(unitRestoreDataMsgFmt, app, what)
 	}
+	// An unknown must never be drawn as a zero. The no-unit fallback cannot report counts, and the
+	// zero-value shape would otherwise read as „the backup held only settings" over a restore that may
+	// have replayed the app's whole dataset. Same failure direction as R-88: degrade to UNKNOWN.
+	if res.CountsUnknown {
+		return fmt.Sprintf(unitRestoreCountsUnknownMsgFmt, app)
+	}
 	if res.ManifestVolumes+res.ManifestDBs > 0 {
 		return fmt.Sprintf(unitRestoreNoneReturnedMsgFmt, app, res.ManifestVolumes, res.ManifestDBs)
 	}
@@ -1551,6 +1557,10 @@ const (
 	// database dumps LISTED. It states the data is unchanged because that is true and load-bearing: the
 	// replay only ever writes into volumes, so a replay that did nothing removed nothing, and a customer
 	// who believes otherwise will do something worse than waiting.
+	// unitRestoreCountsUnknownMsgFmt — the no-unit fallback. It claims only what is known: the restore
+	// ran and the app is back. It deliberately does NOT say data returned and does NOT say it did not.
+	unitRestoreCountsUnknownMsgFmt = "A(z) %s visszaállítása lefutott — az alkalmazás újraindult. Ehhez a mentéshez nem tartozik mentési egység, ezért nem tudjuk megmondani, mi állt vissza belőle. Ellenőrizd az alkalmazásban, hogy megvannak-e az adataid."
+
 	unitRestoreNoneReturnedMsgFmt = "A(z) %s: FIGYELEM — a mentés %d adatkötetet és %d adatbázis-mentést sorol fel, de egyik sem állt vissza. Az adataid változatlanok maradtak. Kérj segítséget, mielőtt újra próbálod."
 )
 

controller/internal/web/r353_unit_outcome_test.go

@@ -170,14 +170,49 @@ func TestR353_HandlerPublishesTheOutcome(t *testing.T) {
 		t.Fatal("the restore never reached a terminal status")
 	}
 
-	// There is no recovery unit and no data on this drive, so nothing came back: Scenario B.
+	// THE ASSERTION THAT CARRIES THE SEAM: whatever branch fires, the sentence the customer is shown
+	// must be `unitRestoreOutcomeMsg`'s output and not the pre-fix string.
 	if strings.Contains(last, "visszaállítva (snap-123)") {
 		t.Fatalf("THE PRE-FIX SENTENCE REACHED THE CUSTOMER: %q — it is true of a restore that "+
 			"returned an entire dataset and of one that returned nothing", last)
 	}
-	for _, want := range []string{"csak a beállításokat tartalmazta", "NEM álltak vissza"} {
+	// This fixture has no recovery unit, so the production path takes the RestoreApp fallback — where
-		if !strings.Contains(last, want) {
+	// the counts are genuinely unknown. The honest sentence for that is the unknown one, and asserting
-			t.Fatalf("the published outcome does not state that no data came back; missing %q in %q", want, last)
+	// it here is what pins the fallback to it: the zero-value shape would otherwise print
-		}
+	// „csak a beállításokat tartalmazta" over a restore that may have returned everything.
+	if strings.Contains(last, "csak a beállításokat tartalmazta") {
+		t.Fatalf("the no-unit fallback claimed the backup held no data, from counts it never "+
+			"established: %q", last)
+	}
+	if !strings.Contains(last, "nem tudjuk megmondani") {
+		t.Fatalf("the published outcome does not state the unknown as unknown; got %q", last)
+	}
+}
+
+// TestUnitRestoreOutcome_NoUnitFallbackSaysUnknownNotEmpty — the defect the first draft of this fix
+// introduced, caught by the observations gate forcing a re-read of my own code.
+//
+// `RestoreFromRecoveryUnit` falls back to `RestoreApp` when there is no recovery unit, and `RestoreApp`
+// returns only an error — its signature is deliberately out of scope. So the result is a ZERO value,
+// and a zero `UnitRestoreResult` is Scenario B's shape: „ez a mentés csak a beállításokat tartalmazta,
+// adatot nem". That sentence would be printed over a fallback restore that had just replayed the app's
+// entire dataset. **An unknown drawn as a zero is the R-88 failure direction**, and it is exactly what
+// this whole change exists to remove — so it must not be re-introduced by the fix itself.
+func TestUnitRestoreOutcome_NoUnitFallbackSaysUnknownNotEmpty(t *testing.T) {
+	msg := unitRestoreOutcomeMsg("legacyapp", backup.UnitRestoreResult{CountsUnknown: true})
+
+	if strings.Contains(msg, "csak a beállításokat tartalmazta") {
+		t.Fatal("FALSE CLAIM: told the customer the backup held no data when the counts were never " +
+			"established — a fallback restore may have returned everything they own")
+	}
+	if strings.Contains(msg, "adatkötet") {
+		t.Fatal("claimed a volume count that was never measured")
+	}
+	if !strings.Contains(msg, "nem tudjuk megmondani") {
+		t.Errorf("an unknown must be STATED as unknown, not left silent; got %q", msg)
+	}
+	// And it must still tell them the restore ran, or the sentence reads as a failure.
+	if !strings.Contains(msg, "lefutott") {
+		t.Errorf("the message must say the restore completed; got %q", msg)
 	}
 }