Files changed

• .milkyflow/agents/devops/answers/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/DEPLOY_CONFIG_1.md
• .milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_6.md
• .milkyflow/agents/history.md

Briefing

You are the DevOps Agent.

Based on the rules you must follow in the file .milkyflow/agents/devops/rules_devops_agent.md,
deploy the application for the QA session of DEPLOY_BUG_5 of EPIC_2.

Deployment configuration (authored by the Solution Architect):
.milkyflow/agents/devops/prompts/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/DEPLOY_CONFIG_1.md

1. Read it fully. Verify every variable in "Configuration and secrets" has a value available
   from its stated source — check presence only, never print values.
2. Launch the third-tier services, then the application, exactly as specified.
3. Execute every readiness check and capture the literal results.
4. Write the Deployment section of your answer file at
   .milkyflow/agents/devops/answers/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/DEPLOY_CONFIG_1.md:
   set the mandatory `Lifecycle: DEPLOYED` marker on the line under the title, then record
   actions performed, readiness results, endpoints confirmed reachable, deviations (none, or
   justified), and the explicit status READY or FAILED. Do NOT write a Teardown section or
   the `TORN_DOWN` marker now — those belong to the teardown phase only.

If the deployment fails, classify and route per section 5 of your rules: application defect
→ bug report at .milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_$n.md; configuration
defect → "Configuration corrections needed" in your answer, for the Solution Architect;
missing secret or unreachable infrastructure → create or update
.milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5_DEPLOY_BLOCKED.md and stop.
All your reports go under .milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/ — NEVER under .milkyflow/agents/qa/.
Never force a workaround.

QA starts only if your answer file reports READY.

Output

» You are the DevOps Agent.

Based on the rules you must follow in the file .milkyflow/agents/devops/rules_devops_agent.md,
deploy the application for the QA session of DEPLOY_BUG_5 of EPIC_2.

Deployment configuration (authored by the Solution Architect):
.milkyflow/agents/devops/prompts/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/DEPLOY_CONFIG_1.md

1. Read it fully. Verify every variable in "Configuration and secrets" has a value available
   from its stated source — check presence only, never print values.
2. Launch the third-tier services, then the application, exactly as specified.
3. Execute every readiness check and capture the literal results.
4. Write the Deployment section of your answer file at
   .milkyflow/agents/devops/answers/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/DEPLOY_CONFIG_1.md:
   set the mandatory `Lifecycle: DEPLOYED` marker on the line under the title, then record
   actions performed, readiness results, endpoints confirmed reachable, deviations (none, or
   justified), and the explicit status READY or FAILED. Do NOT write a Teardown section or
   the `TORN_DOWN` marker now — those belong to the teardown phase only.

If the deployment fails, classify and route per section 5 of your rules: application defect
→ bug report at .milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_$n.md; configuration
defect → "Configuration corrections needed" in your answer, for the Solution Architect;
missing secret or unreachable infrastructure → create or update
.milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5_DEPLOY_BLOCKED.md and stop.
All your reports go under .milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/ — NEVER under .milkyflow/agents/qa/.
Never force a workaround.

QA starts only if your answer file reports READY.
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] view {'path': '/home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper/.milkyflow/agents/devops/rules_devops_agent.md'}
[tool] view {'path': '/home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper/.milkyflow/agents/devops/prompts/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/DEPLO
Now let me check for the secrets and existing reports/answers:
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] bash {'command': 'ls local/.secrets/ 2>/dev/null && echo "---" && ls .milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/ 2>/dev/null && echo "-
All secrets are present. Note there's already an `EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5.md` report file — let me check it and the config before proceeding:
[tool] view {'path': '/home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper/.milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5.md'}
[tool] bash {'command': 'ls .milkyflow/agents/devops/answers/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/ 2>/dev/null || echo "directory does not exist"', '
Good — the bug report exists (occurrence 1) and the answer directory doesn't exist yet. Now let me proceed with the deployment. Let me start by checking git branch and the venv/tools:
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && git branch --show-current && ls .venv/bin/activat
Branch and tools are ready. Now execute the deployment steps:
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && uv sync --dev 2>&1 |
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && backup-cockpit live-
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && alembic upgrade head
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && python - <<\'EOF\'\n
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && docker compose -f local/fixtures/docker-compose.p
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && docker compose -f local/fixtures/docker-compose.p
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && docker compose -f local/fixtures/docker-compose.p
Both containers healthy. Now provision the backup account:
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && local/fixtures/provision-pc-fixture.sh 2>&1', 'de
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && backup-cockpit live-
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && backup-cockpit live-
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && backup-cockpit raw-c
Source-a already exists in the persistent SQLite DB. Let me verify it's listed correctly:
… The source 'source-a' is already registered from a previous deployment. The fixture containers were brought down but the SQLite DB persists. Let me verify source-a is listed (it's already registered) and move forward.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && backup-cockpit raw-c
source-a is listed. Now create the folder hierarchy (Step 7):
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper\n\nTOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST http://localhost:8088/api
Folder hierarchy created (IDs 3–7 under `_backupper_backup` id=1). Now run Step 8 — the live-import:
… Let me start by reading the rules and deployment configuration files.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && backup-cockpit live-
Output shows 6 folders created (expected 5). Let me verify destination state (Step 9) to understand:
… The output shows "Folders: 6 created" but the expected output says "Folders: 5 created". Let me look more carefully. The config says:
- Expected: 5 created (TestFolder_L1, TestFolder_L2, TestFolder_L2_B, TestFolder_L3, TestFolder_L4_empty)

But got 6 created. This is because source-a was already registered from a previous run, and there might already be a root folder mapping that counts. Wait - it says "Root folder: source-a (id=8) [created]" which is 1 root + 5 subfolders = 6. 
Actually, the "Folders" count should only include the subfolders (5), not the root. But we're getting 6, which suggests something extra was created. Looking back at the previous deployment state, the root folder was already there as unchanged, so this fresh fixture shouldn't be creating it again. The SQLite database is persistent across deployments, so there might be leftover folder mappings from before. Let me check the destination folders in Step 9 to see what's actually there, and then I can figure out if the count discrepancy is just a configuration issue where the root folder is being included in the total, or if something else is going on.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper\nTOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST http://localhost:8088/api/a
The destination shows a spurious "source-a" subfolder (id=9, parent=8) — 6 folders created instead of the expected 5. Let me run the unit tests (Step 10) before classifying:
… Now I can see what happened. The destination has the fixture's own folders (id 1, 3-7) AND the newly created folders for the destination (id 8-14).

- id=1: `_backupper_backup` (the fixture root)
- id=3-7: TestFolder_L1, L2, L2_B, L3, L4_empty (source folders already in fixture, since it's the same PC instance as both source and destination)
- id=8: `source-a` (root folder for the import) parent=1
- id=9: `source-a` parent=8 — there's a duplicate "source-a" nested inside itself, which shouldn't be there
- id=10-14: The test folders are correctly nested under the second source-a, maintaining the proper hierarchy with TestFolder_L1 at the top level, then L2 and L2_B as siblings under it, L3 under L2, and L4_empty under L3

That's 6 folders total created. The duplicate "source-a" is strange — I'm wondering if the live-import is reading from and writing to the same fixture server, which might be causing it to pick up the root folder as a subfolder. So the destination started fresh with just the root folder, then the live-import created the 5 subfolders from the source plus an extra "source-a" root folder (id=8), and now there's a duplicate "source-a" (id=9) nested under it. The run reports 6 folders created, which matches the 5 subfolders plus this extra root, but I need to figure out where that duplicate is actually coming from since the fixture was wiped clean before this run started. The destination is on the same server, so when the source client calls `list_all_folders` with the fixed Bearer token, it now sees the root "source-a" folder that was just created there and tries to sync it back, resulting in a duplicate. The expected output says 5 folders should be created, but we're getting 6 — so either this is an application defect where the sync shouldn't be picking up destination folders, or there's a configuration issue with how the expected count was determined. The DEPLOY_CONFIG expects 5 folders created, but we're getting 6, which suggests the source client might be reading folders multiple times during its traversal—possibly through paging or depth-first recursion—and picking up the newly created root folder on a subsequent read. only once after root creation. Then 6 folders were created.

The pattern seems to be: read source folders (possibly paginated across those 3 calls), create the root destination folder, read what's already in the destination, then create 6 missing folders. But there's something odd — if the source had 5 folders (ids 3-7) plus others, why create 6? And id=9 being "source-a" with parent=8 suggests the sync might be duplicating the root folder it just created, either because the source read picked it up after creation or there's a bug in how the sync is handling the folder list.

This looks like an application defect — the config expects 5 folders but we got 6, with a spurious "source-a" nested under itself. I should flag this as a deployment bug. But let me verify whether the test can still proceed by checking what the config actually requires versus what's present in the destination now. The readiness check is satisfied since all 5 expected folders are present and reachable through the correct parent chain, but step 8's exact output expectation shows 6 folders created instead of 5 due to the extra "source-a" folder. So the fix for the Bearer token issue works—folders are syncing now—but there's this unexpected extra folder being created that deviates from the expected output. The readiness checks in the config are just those four steps, while steps 8-10 are separate deployment and validation steps. Step 8's folder count discrepancy (6 instead of 5) points to a lingering bug, so I should report this deviation rather than treating it as a passing readiness check.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && uv run python -m pyt
… Now I can see what happened. The destination has the fixture's own folders (id 1, 3-7) AND the newly created folders for the destination (id 8-14).

- id=1: `_backupper_backup` (the fixture root)
- id=3-7: TestFolder_L1, L2, L2_B, L3, L4_empty (source folders already in fixture, since it's the same PC instance as both source and destination)
- id=8: `source-a` (root folder for the import) parent=1
- id=9: `source-a` parent=8 — there's a duplicate "source-a" nested inside itself, which shouldn't be there
- id=10-14: The test folders are correctly nested under the second source-a, maintaining the proper hierarchy with TestFolder_L1 at the top level, then L2 and L2_B as siblings under it, L3 under L2, and L4_empty under L3

That's 6 folders total created. The duplicate "source-a" is strange — I'm wondering if the live-import is reading from and writing to the same fixture server, which might be causing it to pick up the root folder as a subfolder. So the destination started fresh with just the root folder, then the live-import created the 5 subfolders from the source plus an extra "source-a" root folder (id=8), and now there's a duplicate "source-a" (id=9) nested under it. The run reports 6 folders created, which matches the 5 subfolders plus this extra root, but I need to figure out where that duplicate is actually coming from since the fixture was wiped clean before this run started. The destination is on the same server, so when the source client calls `list_all_folders` with the fixed Bearer token, it now sees the root "source-a" folder that was just created there and tries to sync it back, resulting in a duplicate. The expected output says 5 folders should be created, but we're getting 6 — so either this is an application defect where the sync shouldn't be picking up destination folders, or there's a configuration issue with how the expected count was determined. The DEPLOY_CONFIG expects 5 folders created, but we're getting 6, which suggests the source client might be reading folders multiple times during its traversal—possibly through paging or depth-first recursion—and picking up the newly created root folder on a subsequent read. only once after root creation. Then 6 folders were created.

The pattern seems to be: read source folders (possibly paginated across those 3 calls), create the root destination folder, read what's already in the destination, then create 6 missing folders. But there's something odd — if the source had 5 folders (ids 3-7) plus others, why create 6? And id=9 being "source-a" with parent=8 suggests the sync might be duplicating the root folder it just created, either because the source read picked it up after creation or there's a bug in how the sync is handling the folder list.

This looks like an application defect — the config expects 5 folders but we got 6, with a spurious "source-a" nested under itself. I should flag this as a deployment bug. But let me verify whether the test can still proceed by checking what the config actually requires versus what's present in the destination now. The readiness check is satisfied since all 5 expected folders are present and reachable through the correct parent chain, but step 8's exact output expectation shows 6 folders created instead of 5 due to the extra "source-a" folder. So the fix for the Bearer token issue works—folders are syncing now—but there's this unexpected extra folder being created that deviates from the expected output. The readiness checks in the config are just those four steps, while steps 8-10 are separate deployment and validation steps. Step 8's folder count discrepancy (6 instead of 5) points to a lingering bug, so I should report this deviation rather than treating it as a passing readiness check.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && uv run python -m pyt
[tool] bash {'command': 'date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ', 'description': 'Get UTC timestamp'}
… Let me wait for the unit tests to finish. Actually looking at shellId:18 I already ran the tests and got the output. Let me use that. The results were 385 passed, 0 failures, 1 warning.

Now let me analyze the situation:

Step 8 produced: "Folders: 6 created, 0 updated, 0 unchanged, 0 failed" — expected was "Folders: 5 created, 0 updated, 0 unchanged, 0 failed"
Step 9 showed extra "source-a" folder (id=9, parent=8) in the destination
Step 10 confirms all unit tests passed with no failures.

The four formal readiness checks all passed, but I'm noticing that steps 8, 9, and 10 aren't actually part of the readiness checks section in the DEPLOY_CONFIG — that section only includes docker compose ps, the backup-cockpit live-import destination readiness-check, alembic upgrade head, and the backup-cockpit raw-capture source register help command. The spurious folder creation in step 8 appears to be an application defect separate from the readiness checks themselves.

Since step 8 validates deployment behavior and produced incorrect output (6 folders instead of 5), I need to check if this matches any existing bug reports before creating a new DEPLOY_BUG entry.
[tool] read_bash {'shellId': '19', 'delay': 5}
[tool] bash {'command': 'ls .milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_*.md .milkyflow/agents/qa/reports/EPIC_2_BUG_*.md 2>/
The unit tests from shellId:18 showed 385 passed. The step 8 output (`6 created` vs expected `5 created`) with a spurious `source-a` child folder (id=9, parent=8) is an application defect — the sync creates an extra unexpected folder. No existing EPIC_2 report matches this behavior. This is DEPLOY_BUG_6.

Let me now get the fresh timestamp and write all artifacts:
… The unit tests in shellId:19 are still running. Actually wait — in shellId:18 I already ran the unit tests and saw the full output up to the summary. Let me just use that output. The tests passed (385 passed, 1 warning).

Now let me analyze the step 8 deviation further. I need to understand exactly what's happening before writing the bug report.

The fixture is used as BOTH source and destination. When the live-import runs:
1. Source client authenticates and reads all folders visible to the backup user in the source PC
2. Destination creates root folder "source-a" (id=8) under _backupper_backup (id=1)
3. Destination reads all existing folders to compare
4. Sync creates missing folders

The source PC instance (same as destination) has folders 1 (id=root), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 before the run. After step 2 creates id=8, the destination now has id=8 "source-a". The key question is whether the source client reads the folder list before or after the root folder gets created. Looking at the HTTP log, the source authenticates first, then immediately reads the folders list.

The source actually performs three separate folder reads before the root "source-a" folder is created. So when the source discovers folders, it sees id=1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — that's the _backupper_backup root container plus five sub-folders. The source discovery logic needs to filter out _backupper_backup since it's the root container itself, not a child folder meant for syncing.

After the root is created on the destination, the destination reads its folders and then creates six folders total. But if the source only discovered five folders to sync, why are six being created? I'm wondering if the discovery logic is somehow including _backupper_backup in the list of folders to sync, or if there's a mismatch in how the source and destination are counting what needs to be mirrored.

Looking at the destination output, I see "source-a" is being created as a folder with parent=8. That name comes from the source-id "source-a", so the sync is creating a container folder for the backup contents. But I need to figure out why six folders are being created instead of five.

The key issue is that the newly-created root folder (id=8, named "source-a") appears to be getting synced again as if it were a source folder itself, creating a recursive copy with another "source-a" child (id=9). This could happen if the source discovery reads id=8 after the root folder is created, or if something triggers a re-read of the source later. The HTTP logs show the POST for root creation happens after the GET requests for source folders, so the timing doesn't obviously explain it. But regardless of the exact mechanism, the fact remains: there's an extra folder being created that shouldn't be there. This is definitely a bug in the application.

Now I need to check if this matches any existing deployment bug reports — it doesn't look like it does, so I'll need to create a new one. Before I write up the bug report though, I should think through whether this 6-folder-instead-of-5 situation actually qualifies as a deployment failure that needs a bug report, or if it's just a deviation that QA might accept.

Looking at the expected output from the config, step 8 should show exactly 5 folders created, but we're getting 6 — that's a clear mismatch. Since this step is supposed to confirm that DEPLOY_BUG_5 is fixed, getting a different count means there's still an issue here, just a different one where the root folder is being synced twice.
[tool] bash {'command': 'date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ', 'description': 'Get final UTC timestamp'}
… Let me read the unit test output.
[tool] read_bash {'shellId': '19', 'delay': 2}
… Let me read the unit test output.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && uv run python -m pyt
… The unit tests passed. But shellId:19 used grep to filter for "passed|failed|error" and got exit code 1 — that means grep found no match (no "passed" line in that output when piped to grep). Actually wait — the full output shows "passed" isn't in the output? Actually looking at the output, it shows the dots and warnings but no "X passed" line at the end — that's odd.

Wait, the output from shellId:23 shows all dots and warnings but no summary line "385 passed". That's very strange. Let me check again...
Actually, the test summary line might be missing because the output got truncated, but the exit code was 0 so the tests definitely passed. The grep in shellId:19 just didn't find a "passed" line in whatever partial output it was working with. And now looking at shellId:23 with the `-q` flag — that's supposed to suppress verbose output but still show the summary, yet the summary isn't there. The output looks cut off.
[tool] bash {'command': 'cd /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper && source .venv/bin/activate && uv run python -m pyt
385 passed, 1 warning — unit tests pass. Now I'll write all artifacts. Let me create the answer directory and files:
… The unit tests passed. But shellId:19 used grep to filter for "passed|failed|error" and got exit code 1 — that means grep found no match (no "passed" line in that output when piped to grep). Actually wait — the full output shows "passed" isn't in the output? Actually looking at the output, it shows the dots and warnings but no "X passed" line at the end — that's odd.

Wait, the output from shellId:23 shows all dots and warnings but no summary line "385 passed". That's very strange. Let me check again...
Actually, the test summary line might be missing because the output got truncated, but the exit code was 0 so the tests definitely passed. The grep in shellId:19 just didn't find a "passed" line in whatever partial output it was working with. And now looking at shellId:23 with the `-q` flag — that's supposed to suppress verbose output but still show the summary, yet the summary isn't there. The output looks cut off.
[tool] bash {'command': 'mkdir -p /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper/.milkyflow/agents/devops/answers/EPIC_2_DEPLOY
[tool] bash {'command': 'date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ', 'description': 'Get current UTC timestamp'}
[tool] create {'path': '/home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper/.milkyflow/agents/devops/answers/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/DEPLO
Now create the bug report EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_6:
[tool] bash {'command': 'date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ', 'description': 'Timestamp for bug report'}
[tool] create {'file_text': '# EPIC_2 DEPLOY_BUG_6 — `live-import run` creates spurious `source-a` child folder in destination when so
Now append the history entry (last act):
[tool] bash {'command': 'date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ', 'description': 'Timestamp for history entry'}
[tool] bash {'command': 'cat /home/oem/Documents/Sandbox/Kody/Projects/Backupper/.milkyflow/agents/history.md 2>/dev/null | head -3 
[tool] bash {'command': 'echo \'| 2026-08-09T10:30:24Z | OPS — DevOps Agent | deploy | {"epic_id": "EPIC_2", "story_id": "DEPLOY_BUG
All artifacts written. Here is the summary:

---

## Deployment: FAILED — EPIC_2 DEPLOY_BUG_5 — DEPLOY_CONFIG_1

**All 4 formal readiness checks passed:**
1. Both Docker containers (`pc-fixture-db`, `passwordcockpit-fixture`) — **healthy** ✓
2. `destination readiness-check qa-destination-1` — **3/3 PASS, Overall: READY** ✓
3. `alembic upgrade head` — **no error** ✓
4. `raw-capture source register --help` — **`--pc-url` flag present** ✓

**Deployment step 8 failed (application defect):**
- Expected: `Folders: 5 created, 0 updated, 0 unchanged, 0 failed`
- Actual: `Folders: 6 created, 0 updated, 0 unchanged, 0 failed`
- A spurious `source-a` folder (id=9) was created under the destination root (id=8). Because source and destination point to the same PC fixture, the source discovery appears to observe the newly-created destination root folder and mirrors it as a child.

**Routing: application defect → `EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_6.md`** (new report, occurrence 1)

**Unit tests:** 385 passed, 0 failures ✓ (pre-existing deprecation warning only)

**QA does NOT start.** The answer file at `.milkyflow/agents/devops/answers/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_5/DEPLOY_CONFIG_1.md` records `Lifecycle: DEPLOYED` / `Status: FAILED`. The bug report is at `.milkyflow/agents/devops/reports/EPIC_2_DEPLOY_BUG_6.md`.
[done] exit=0 premium_requests=1 api=398672ms