[codex] Promote loop decision runtime pins

[Svaag]

Promotion

Promotes the merged loop decision runtime rollout to the production deployment pins.

Pinned versions:

• noc_agent_version: 515381e6c2e93f3307340eeb50a63481c7a678c4
• noc_knowledge_version: 48684c9bb9ce9de781fbfbcae734c18b57d3e7fa
• engineering_loop_version: 1c3b6cc87dd405d23c37c4cabd8fe7620cf2485a
• knowledge_mcp_version: 48684c9bb9ce9de781fbfbcae734c18b57d3e7fa
• knowledge_loop_version: 48684c9bb9ce9de781fbfbcae734c18b57d3e7fa
• agentic_observatory_version: 2ecdfa07cc62264f45690a81400e86cda6d65921

App PRs merged:

• [codex] Emit loop decision envelopes noc-agent#67
• [codex] Emit loop decision envelopes engineering-loop#34
• [codex] Emit loop decision envelopes soc-agent#3
• [codex] Emit loop decision envelopes knowledge#30
• [codex] Add loop decision memory export knowledge#31
• [codex] Add Knowledge-backed cross-loop timelines agentic-observatory#8

Deploy impact:

• Affected playbooks: noc, engineering-loop
• Runtime LoopDecisionEnvelope emission, Knowledge shared decision memory export/query, arbiter shadow query support, and Observatory cross-loop timelines.

Validation:

• App post-merge main CI is green where configured.
• SOC has no Actions workflow; local full checks passed before merge.
• scripts/ci/iac-static.sh
• uv run pytest tests/iac/test_app_version_pins.py tests/iac/test_app_promotion_deploy.py
• uv run pytest tests/iac/test_app_version_pins.py

Production gate:

• Stop at the GitHub production environment approval gate after this promotion merges.

[github-actions]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

🎫 Ticket compliance analysis 🔶 67 - Partially compliant Compliant requirements: None Non-compliant requirements: No new check script added No CheckCommand definition added No host_vars switching from http to noc_agent_mail_health No re-rendered config committed 34 - Partially compliant Compliant requirements: None Non-compliant requirements: No new playbook or tool call implementing ecmp_path_select No integration with multi_source_probe shown Version bump alone does not fulfill the feature requirement in this repo Requires further human verification: The actual implementation exists in https://github.com/AS215932/engineering-loop#34, which is outside the scope of this PR 3 - Partially compliant Compliant requirements: None Non-compliant requirements: No new host or playbook related to XCP-NG server No vSwitch or storage configuration changes Unrelated to this version bump PR

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 1 🔵⚪⚪⚪⚪

🏅 Score: 85

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Missing config integration The version bump of noc_agent includes noc-agent#67 (mail health JSON body) but the corresponding infrastructure configuration switching the Icinga check command from http to noc_agent_mail_health is absent. As a result, the new endpoint parsing logic in the agent will not be used by monitoring until a separate PR adds the script, CheckCommand, and host_vars change. This can cause the alert to continue surfacing only the HTTP status code, negating the value of the agent update. noc_agent_version: 515381e6c2e93f3307340eeb50a63481c7a678c4 hyrule_mcp_version: b201978d6474112f46095b37bb4b35e13855fd50 noc_knowledge_version: 48684c9bb9ce9de781fbfbcae734c18b57d3e7fa

[github-actions]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
Possible issue	Confirm commit hash validity Verify that this commit hash 1c3b6cc87dd405d23c37c4cabd8fe7620cf2485a exists in the target repository and corresponds to a stable, non-draft release. A missing or incorrect hash will cause deployment failures. ansible/inventory/host_vars/loop.yml [9] +engineering_loop_version: "1c3b6cc87dd405d23c37c4cabd8fe7620cf2485a" - Suggestion importance[1-10]: 4 __ Why: The suggestion merely asks to verify the commit hash without proposing any code change or improvement. Since the existing code and improved code are identical, the suggestion adds little value. It is not incorrect, but it has low impact as it is a general caution rather than a specific fix or optimization.	Low