# Parent comparison: image 008

Parent: /root, local task 01a0e067-c27c-77f2-a3f9-ec52a44b62cf. Fresh describer: /root/blind_008, gpt-6-luna high, forked with no conversation context. Its only evidence input was this image. Parent has read its completed description and checked the image checksum.

[Actual screenshot](../inputs/008.png) · [Independent description](../descriptions/008.md)

Variant A. Captured action: Lost committed creation response with retry offered. URL: https://calendar-stage-20260923.cfd-staging.com/panel/proposals/. Screenshot SHA256: `301f2a7bdc27b40b08d1471511c86025769ac156727035b55e15885c6dfd81a4`.

- C05: When Péter creates a proposal for a new synthetic customer and repeats the save after a simulated retry, then exactly one CRM contact and one linked proposal exist and the editor opens.
- C23: When a save fails or another session changes the same proposal, then the user sees a clear unsaved/conflict state with a recoverable path and their typed values are not silently lost.

**Parent judgment: the described visible state supports its named evidence contribution.** The independent description sees the failed request and retained create form, including explicit text that retry will not make a second contact. The actual response-stage network receipt proves the server had returned 200 before the response was dropped. Same-request retry/readback and the separate narrow D1 fault harness prove exactly one contact/proposal. This is intentional failure-state evidence for C05/C23, not a claim of a normal successful screen.

[Completed GUI journeys and exact behavioral evidence](../../deployed-gui/scenario-matrix.md). [Source mapping without customer identity](../../source-mapping-sanitized.json). Full criterion acceptance also requires the other variant and its nonvisual checks. A screenshot is not treated as proof of persistence, timing, arithmetic or downloaded bytes.