Spracherkennung für: .md vermutete Sprache: Unknown {[0] [0] [0]} [Methode: Schwerpunktbildung, einfache Gewichte, sechs Dimensionen]
---
summary: "How to review the GPT-5.4 / Codex parity program as four merge units"
title: "GPT-5.4 / Codex parity maintainer notes"
read_when:
- Reviewing the GPT-5.4 / Codex parity PR series
- Maintaining the six-contract agentic architecture behind the parity program
---
This note explains how to review the GPT-5.4 / Codex parity program as four merge units without losing the original six-contract architecture.
## Merge units
### PR A: strict-agentic execution
Owns:
- `executionContract`
- GPT-5-first same-turn follow-through
- `update_plan` as non-terminal progress tracking
- explicit blocked states instead of plan-only silent stops
Does not own:
- auth/runtime failure classification
- permission truthfulness
- replay/continuation redesign
- parity benchmarking
### PR B: runtime truthfulness
Owns:
- Codex OAuth scope correctness
- typed provider/runtime failure classification
- truthful `/elevated full` availability and blocked reasons
Does not own:
- tool schema normalization
- replay/liveness state
- benchmark gating
### PR C: execution correctness
Owns:
- provider-owned OpenAI/Codex tool compatibility
- parameter-free strict schema handling
- replay-invalid surfacing
- paused, blocked, and abandoned long-task state visibility
Does not own:
- self-elected continuation
- generic Codex dialect behavior outside provider hooks
- benchmark gating
### PR D: parity harness
Owns:
- first-wave GPT-5.4 vs Opus 4.6 scenario pack
- parity documentation
- parity report and release-gate mechanics
Does not own:
- runtime behavior changes outside QA-lab
- auth/proxy/DNS simulation inside the harness
## Mapping back to the original six contracts
| Original contract | Merge unit |
| ---------------------------------------- | ---------- |
| Provider transport/auth correctness | PR B |
| Tool contract/schema compatibility | PR C |
| Same-turn execution | PR A |
| Permission truthfulness | PR B |
| Replay/continuation/liveness correctness | PR C |
| Benchmark/release gate | PR D |
## Review order
1. PR A
2. PR B
3. PR C
4. PR D
PR D is the proof layer. It should not be the reason runtime-correctness PRs are delayed.
## What to look for
### PR A
- GPT-5 runs act or fail closed instead of stopping at commentary
- `update_plan` no longer looks like progress by itself
- behavior stays GPT-5-first and embedded-Pi scoped
### PR B
- auth/proxy/runtime failures stop collapsing into generic “model failed” handling
- `/elevated full` is only described as available when it is actually available
- blocked reasons are visible to both the model and the user-facing runtime
### PR C
- strict OpenAI/Codex tool registration behaves predictably
- parameter-free tools do not fail strict schema checks
- replay and compaction outcomes preserve truthful liveness state
### PR D
- the scenario pack is understandable and reproducible
- the pack includes a mutating replay-safety lane, not only read-only flows
- reports are readable by humans and automation
- parity claims are evidence-backed, not anecdotal
Expected artifacts from PR D:
- `qa-suite-report.md` / `qa-suite-summary.json` for each model run
- `qa-agentic-parity-report.md` with aggregate and scenario-level comparison
- `qa-agentic-parity-summary.json` with a machine-readable verdict
## Release gate
Do not claim GPT-5.4 parity or superiority over Opus 4.6 until:
- PR A, PR B, and PR C are merged
- PR D runs the first-wave parity pack cleanly
- runtime-truthfulness regression suites remain green
- the parity report shows no fake-success cases and no regression in stop behavior
```mermaid
flowchart LR
A["PR A-C merged"] --> B["Run GPT-5.4 parity pack"]
A --> C["Run Opus 4.6 parity pack"]
B --> D["qa-suite-summary.json"]
C --> E["qa-suite-summary.json"]
D --> F["qa parity-report"]
E --> F
F --> G["Markdown report + JSON verdict"]
G --> H{"Pass?"}
H -- "yes" --> I["Parity claim allowed"]
H -- "no" --> J["Keep runtime fixes / review loop open"]
```
The parity harness is not the only evidence source. Keep this split explicit in review:
- PR D owns the scenario-based GPT-5.4 vs Opus 4.6 comparison
- PR B deterministic suites still own auth/proxy/DNS and full-access truthfulness evidence
## Goal-to-evidence map
| Completion gate item | Primary owner | Review artifact |
| ---------------------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| No plan-only stalls | PR A | strict-agentic runtime tests and `approval-turn-tool-followthrough` |
| No fake progress or fake tool completion | PR A + PR D | parity fake-success count plus scenario-level report details |
| No false `/elevated full` guidance | PR B | deterministic runtime-truthfulness suites |
| Replay/liveness failures remain explicit | PR C + PR D | lifecycle/replay suites plus `compaction-retry-mutating-tool` |
| GPT-5.4 matches or beats Opus 4.6 | PR D | `qa-agentic-parity-report.md` and `qa-agentic-parity-summary.json` |
## Reviewer shorthand: before vs after
| User-visible problem before | Review signal after |
| ----------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| GPT-5.4 stopped after planning | PR A shows act-or-block behavior instead of commentary-only completion |
| Tool use felt brittle with strict OpenAI/Codex schemas | PR C keeps tool registration and parameter-free invocation predictable |
| `/elevated full` hints were sometimes misleading | PR B ties guidance to actual runtime capability and blocked reasons |
| Long tasks could disappear into replay/compaction ambiguity | PR C emits explicit paused, blocked, abandoned, and replay-invalid state |
| Parity claims were anecdotal | PR D produces a report plus JSON verdict with the same scenario coverage on both models |
## Related
- [GPT-5.4 / Codex agentic parity](/help/gpt54-codex-agentic-parity)
[Dauer der Verarbeitung: 0.14 Sekunden, vorverarbeitet 2026-04-27]
