REPORT: record CI run 348 by id, and what could not be read

Checklist item "confirm your own push's CI run by run ID". Run 348,
head_sha ebfd0967c, conclusion failure, elapsed 13 s -- the inherited
golden-currency conviction (R-334), not a new fault: CI's only step is the
same repo_gates.py --fast entry point, and 13 s is the honest-failure band
rather than R-265's reap band.

Stated plainly that the run LOG could not be read (runs/348/logs and
tasks/348/logs both 404 authenticated as admin, runs/348/jobs empty, web
endpoint 302), so naming the gate is an inference from the local run plus
gates.yml -- not CI's own words. Standing rule 2: a "no access" claim names
what was tried.

Also notes the [felhom CI] gates FAILED mail run 348 will send, so it is not
read as a second incident alongside this morning's backup alerts.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016p1PTCzb8rF5G9Aa1qhpBN

REPORT.md

@@ -101,6 +101,20 @@ one-sided job CC can finish.
 **This push therefore used `git push --no-verify`, stated here per `.claude/rules/gates.md`.**
 R-334 is updated in the register with the new numbers rather than left reading 0.215.0.
 
+**CI checked by run ID, as the checklist requires: run `348`, `head_sha ebfd0967c`, conclusion
+`failure`, elapsed 13 s** (04:09:45→04:09:58Z). Expected and inherited — CI's only step is
+`python3 scripts/repo_gates.py --fast`, the same entry point that convicts golden-currency locally,
+with the sibling repos fetched. The 13 s runtime places it in the workflow's own "honest gate
+failure" band rather than the R-265 reap band, so the result is the gate speaking, not the runner.
+**I could not read the run log to name the gate from CI's own mouth** — `actions/runs/348/logs` and
+`actions/tasks/348/logs` both 404, `actions/runs/348/jobs` returns an empty list, authenticated as
+`admin`, and the web log endpoint 302s. So this is an inference from the local run plus the workflow
+definition, not a direct reading, and it is stated as such.
+
+**Expect one `[felhom CI] gates FAILED in admin/felhom.eu` mail for run 348** — the workflow alarms
+on failure by design. It is this push, and it is the golden-currency row, not a new fault; the same
+mails on 12 and 14 August have the same cause.
+
 *(Noted for accuracy: the first gate run was piped to `tail`, which returned `rc=0` — `tail`'s exit
 code, not the gate's. It was re-run unpiped to read the real `rc=1`. That is standing rule 1's trap
 in its smaller form, and the number reported above is the unpiped one.)*