feat(calibration): operator visibility for the satisfaction-floor loosening loop

[JSONbored]

Summary

• Closes calibration: operator visibility for applied loosenings — live floor + history on the internal calibration surface #8161: applied loosenings stop being D1-archaeology. loadSatisfactionFloorStatus reports the flag state, shipped vs live floor, the validated stored override — shown even while the flag is off, because an operator must see a lingering row that would take effect the moment the flag flips (while liveFloor only follows it when on) — and the applied-loosening history projected newest-first from the calibration.satisfaction_floor_loosened audit events with both split verdicts and sample sizes.
• Honesty properties, each pinned: a corrupt or non-object history row degrades to a nulls entry rather than hiding that an apply happened; out-of-bounds/garbled stored values are rejected from both storedOverride and liveFloor; every read fails safe.
• Served at GET /v1/internal/calibration/satisfaction-floor — deliberately NOT flag-gated (visibility must survive a flag flip), same INTERNAL_JOB_TOKEN gate as its calibration siblings, aggregate numbers/verdicts only (leak-guard pinned).

Closes #8161

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:test
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Full npm run test:ci: 20,686 tests passed with exactly one failure — the known symlinked-node_modules worktree artifact in miner-package-skeleton, re-run green under a real npm ci (alongside the status suite) after rebasing onto current main; ui:version-audit green on the rebased base. The touched run module holds 100% line+branch coverage across its suites (rebase absorbed feat(calibration): schedule the satisfaction-floor loosening tick with a one-shot apply alert #8175's tail cleanly).

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

401-without-token negative path tested; the endpoint is read-only and carries no corpus content of any kind.

UI Evidence

Not applicable — no UI change (internal operator endpoint).

Notes

• calibration: wire ai_review_close_confidence override consumption and flip the knob to live #8176 (close-confidence consumption) will generalize this surface to multi-knob when that knob goes live.

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-23 08:57:36 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI pending · dirty

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This PR adds a read-only operator-status endpoint for the satisfaction-floor loosening loop: it reports flag state, shipped vs. live floor, the raw stored override (deliberately shown even when the flag is off), and the applied-loosening audit history projected newest-first with fail-safe degradation on corrupt rows or DB errors. The bounds check on `storedOverride` (< shipped floor, >= hard minimum) correctly mirrors the existing `getSatisfactionFloorOverride` validation, and the route is properly gated by the shared `INTERNAL_JOB_TOKEN` middleware while intentionally not flag-gated, which is the whole point of the feature. Test coverage is thorough (defaults, override on/off asymmetry, out-of-bounds rejection, corrupt-row degradation, DB-error fail-safe, and a leak-guard on the route response).

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• `verdictOrNull` reads `proposal.visible`/`proposal.heldOut` (satisfaction-floor-loosening-run.ts:52-55) and the test fabricates that exact shape (satisfaction-floor-status.test.ts:75-76), but only `currentFloor`/`proposedFloor`/`visibleCases`/`heldOutCases` are independently confirmed against the pre-existing `runScheduledSatisfactionFloorLoosening` logging (satisfaction-floor-loosening-run.ts, unchanged lines) — worth double-checking `SatisfactionFloorLooseningProposal`'s real field names in satisfaction-floor-loosening.ts so `visibleVerdict`/`heldOutVerdict` don't silently null out in production.
• The `storedOverride` read in `loadSatisfactionFloorStatus` (satisfaction-floor-loosening-run.ts:194-206) duplicates the query + bounds check already in `getSatisfactionFloorOverride`, just without the flag short-circuit; consider extracting a shared `readValidatedOverrideRow(env)` helper to avoid the two bound-checks drifting apart later.
• `SATISFACTION_FLOOR_STATUS_HISTORY_LIMIT` of 25 is a reasonable but unexplained magic number — a one-line comment on why 25 (vs. e.g. matching some other history-limit convention) would help future readers.
• Extract the override-row read+validate logic shared between `getSatisfactionFloorOverride` and `loadSatisfactionFloorStatus` into one helper to keep the bounds check single-sourced.
• Add a brief comment or link to `SatisfactionFloorLooseningProposal`'s definition confirming `visible`/`heldOut` are the real field names the write path emits, so the verdict-mapping in `verdictOrNull` is traceable end-to-end.
• PR author also opened the linked issue — Link an issue that was opened by a different contributor, or provide a rationale for why this self-authored issue represents genuine discovery work.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#8161
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 14 registered-repo PR(s), 14 merged, 253 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 14 PR(s), 253 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds loadSatisfactionFloorStatus reporting flag state, shipped vs live floor, stored override, and applied-loosening history with split verdicts, and exposes it via a new INTERNAL_JOB_TOKEN-gated route as a sibling internal read, matching the issue's required pattern rather than the trend-endpoint alternative but satisfying its either/or framing.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, Ruby, Go, JavaScript, MDX, Shell, Solidity
• Official Gittensor activity: 14 PR(s), 253 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.15%. Comparing base (a41206a) to head (c1ba3ac).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8180      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.77%   90.15%   +8.38%     
==========================================
  Files         769       99     -670     
  Lines       77863    25257   -52606     
  Branches    23523     4725   -18798     
==========================================
- Hits        63673    22771   -40902     
+ Misses      11317     2214    -9103     
+ Partials     2873      272    -2601     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	30.39% <100.00%> (-24.51%)	⬇️
shard-2	44.47% <10.52%> (-10.01%)	⬇️
shard-3	69.07% <10.52%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/api/routes.ts	95.28% <100.00%> (+13.90%)	⬆️
src/services/satisfaction-floor-loosening-run.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (+44.89%)	⬆️

... and 670 files with indirect coverage changes