RECOVERY SUMMARY Access to the review sandbox for a shared engineering desk was re-scoped after handoff logs closed a nine-month trial; the trial's own artifact register stayed open.
EXTRACTED DATA
A visiting evaluation account arrived at the shared bench at 03:46:48 and stayed logged in past the scheduled window.
The account belonged to a trial partner working the same desk as the internal roadmap team, whose whiteboard and standing calendar hold were still posted on the shared terminal.
Trial duration on record: 340 days. Repository commit count carried over: 264. Both figures were entered into the register three years ago and have not been revised since.
The desk shares its review terminal with the compliance intake team, whose intake folders sit on the same drive and whose Tuesday sync blocks the terminal from 09:00 to 11:00.
Artifact register, four fields, entered same day as close-out: repository forked: yes. Trial NDA on file: yes. Derivative-works clause acknowledged: yes. Ownership transfer executed: [blank].
The blank field was not left by oversight. It was entered at close-out, before the escalation that followed, and it already carries the same close-out date stamped on the other three.
Two commit logs claim authorship of the same pipeline module: one under the trial partner's engineering account, one under the internal roadmap team's fork. Both are signed, both are dated within the trial window, and a request to revoke the internal signature returned unresolved.
The intake lead who fields cross-team access tickets was handed the revocation request and did not act on it. "Tell them I'm not reopening a closed trial to relitigate whose name goes on a commit."
A parallel measurement exists outside this register. An external code-provenance audit, run by a firm using its own similarity scoring, cleared the module at 0.91 on its first pass. Four days later, on a rerun requested for an unrelated matter, the same firm returned 0.34 on the same module. Both scores are filed, unreconciled, under the same case reference.
Elapsed time on the shared terminal for the two disputed commits: 261 seconds apart on first capture, 431 seconds apart on the stopwatch rerun taken under an unspecified change in floor conditions. The gap has not closed since; it has only been re-measured.
Runlayer's underlying complaint, filed 2026-07-28, describes a trial run by Rippling that ran nearly a year before it collapsed over pricing; the desk's own artifact register predates that filing by three years and was never amended to match it.
A verification pass against the original repository hash is scheduled for the fourth-quarter audit cycle; the compliance intake lead named above is listed as the assigned reviewer, and no result yet exists.
The artifact register remains open under its original three-year-old timestamp, its ownership-transfer field still unentered.
SOURCE ANCHOR Runlayer v. Rippling complaint coverage
End of report. Harvester HRV-7714-MERIDIAN returning to standby.