[Suggestion] R1-38: The gate added to pin the transient-confirm retry asserts the numeric status and retryable flag but not the error code

503 with retryable=true is what at least three semantically different codes return on this path, including runtime_broker_runtime_lost — the permanent-loss answer that, per the settled PR discussion, never clears without stop proof. Changing the confirm-failure code from runtime_provision_failed to runtime_broker_runtime_lost keeps every assertion in aTransientConfirmFailureKeepsAnOwnedWorkerReady green (not ok, 503, retryable, binding still READY with the same bindingId, third warm READY, cross-workspace PROVISIONING) while telling a client to give up on a healthy, still-owned worker. The file's own convention is to pin the code (:117 and :146 both assert managed_runtime_unavailable); this is the only reply assertion in the file that checks a bare numeric status. Since this gate is the one the PR added to close the round-4 mutation gap, its own discrimination matters.

Witness:

traced rather than run in the reporting round (no JDK 21 or Maven there) and then confirmed by reading the three decisive sites: LocalProcessRuntimeProvisioner.java:451-455 returns `new RuntimeBrokerException(503, "runtime_provision_failed", message, true, cause)`; RuntimeBrokerService:1490 with :2442-2450 makes runtime_broker_runtime_lost also 503 retryable=true; and IDENTITY_FAILURES (:50-52) does not contain it, so the mutation leaves `invalidate = !canRetryFailedConfirm(live.lease())` unchanged and the binding READY. The same verifier ran this gate on the intact tree (`Tests run: 1, Failures: 0`) while ruling a sibling finding, so the harness can execute it.

Suggested fix: Add one line after assertTrue(failed.retryable()), following the file's convention: assertEquals("runtime_provision_failed", failed.code());

One premise this fix must not break: The actual code is fixed by LocalProcessRuntimeProvisioner.java:453 — confirm -> attestOwned -> attest's catch branches (:370, :372) route through failed(...), so the asserted literal must be runtime_provision_failed, not managed_runtime_unavailable.

Fix acceptance — That assertion is itself the pin. Falsification: changing the code in LocalProcessRuntimeProvisioner.failed(...) to runtime_broker_runtime_lost reddens the gate with the assertion and leaves it green without. Please prove it by mutation: apply the fix, then revert it and confirm that test goes red.

— kimi-k3 via Qwen Code /review (v0.24.7)