Regenerated complete branches fail closed; evaluator has no branch-selection tie-break #2

evaluateProTurnCompletion never receives a branch-selection pointer. When a conversation mapping contains two independent, both-complete recap -> terminal-text branches under the same turn_exchange_id — the shape produced by a regenerate/retry — the leaf-ambiguity check rejects both because neither is a graph descendant of the other:

const leafCandidates = structurallySafe.filter((candidate) =>
  !structurallySafe.some((other) =>
    other.key !== candidate.key && isDescendantOf(mapping, other.key, candidate.key)
  )
);
if (leafCandidates.length !== 1) {
  return {
    done: false,
    reason: `ambiguous terminal text branches (${leafCandidates.length})`,
  };
}

That is correct for a genuinely stray/abandoned branch, but it is a false negative when both branches are finished and the UI is currently displaying one specific branch. From mapping alone the function cannot distinguish those cases.

Reproduction

root
├─ recapA(reasoning_ended)
│  └─ finalA(finished_successfully, end_turn, stop)
└─ recapB(reasoning_ended)
   └─ finalB(finished_successfully, end_turn, stop)

Both branches use the same turn_exchange_id. Current result (executed against a logic-identical port of pro-final.ts):

{
  "done": false,
  "reason": "active or graph-incomparable reasoning remains for final text candidate"
}

(The exact reason is the active-reasoning/graph-incomparability veto rather than the later ambiguous terminal text branches (2) check, but the underlying issue is the same: there is no branch-selection signal.)

Possible direction

ChatGPT conversation responses are commonly understood to include a top-level current_node pointer identifying the branch the UI displays, but I have not verified that field against a captured response from rosetta's current endpoint, so treating it as available would be premature. client.ts currently narrows the response to {mapping?: ConversationMapping}, and neither src/ nor tests/ references current_node.

Could you confirm whether the raw /backend-api/conversation/<id> response you see carries current_node? If it does, one option is to widen the response type and pass that pointer into the evaluator as an optional tie-break. If it does not, this may be an unavoidable fail-closed case and worth documenting as such.

I don't have a patch ready for this one because the right API depends on that wire fact. Filed separately from #1 because #1 is a one-line fail-open fix with a ready regression, while this is a caller/API design question.