What issue are you seeing?
Requesting service review of two Codex subagent turns that terminated with codex_error_info: "bio_policy" while performing read-only applicability/coverage critique of public primary literature. We cannot determine the actual triggering input from the returned diagnostics. This is a possible unintended refusal report, not a claim that the safety decision is wrong and not a request to disable safeguards.
The reported error was:
This content was flagged for possible biological risk.
The task concerned fluorescent-reporter calibration and nutrient-dependent transcription-factor localization: whether supplied experimental results and methods actually supported the research question. It did not request experimental execution or modification of an organism. A later narrowed request excluded unrelated material, but it was made in the same reviewer thread, so earlier history may still have been present. The trigger remains unknown.
What steps can reproduce the bug?
We are reporting the saved failed invocations rather than attempting a new reproduction. No further rejected-content submission, model/provider/account switch, or filter workaround has been attempted.
- Reviewer thread:
01a1207c-767f-7592-9640-2a766bbaffeb.
- First failing turn:
01a1215a-50a9-7983-bc5c-a69118ed25cf; started 2026-10-09 15:48:49 UTC, completed with the refusal at 15:59:08 UTC. Local delegated message: 2,040 UTF-8 bytes; SHA-256 33791b3e2506d6c708e89f9c85e93380634d323396c86beb09d20dc488c5a025.
- Second failing turn:
01a12165-f313-70c3-8ea8-a94f53dc7298; started 2026-10-09 16:01:31 UTC, completed with the refusal at 16:01:42 UTC. Local delegated message: 1,976 UTF-8 bytes; SHA-256 85ff7814ef294b3ed0beb6369ae189f16df3f9fcc93233f41258dddf538130f6.
Those message sizes are not total serialized inference input sizes; the reviewer had prior history. No HTTP request/correlation ID or triggering passage/rule was returned. Local task-completion envelopes contained an error, not a successful review.
What is the expected behavior?
Please investigate these saved service outcomes, confirm the appropriate supported review/appeal channel, and provide sufficient diagnostic attribution to distinguish a policy refusal from other failures. We are not requesting a new model answer or automatic clearance. We will preserve both failed attempts and await legitimate review before resuming the affected scientific review.
Additional information
- Observed runtime model/effort:
gpt-6.1-sol, high; read-only biology-evidence reviewer task assigned through collaboration.followup_task to a previously existing subagent (agent type default with the explicit model override).
- Running app-server version at the reviewer session and present diagnostic read:
0.162.0; separately installed shell CLI version: 0.160.0. This version difference is recorded, not asserted as the cause.
- Environment: Linux x86_64 development workspace, Codex desktop-associated local app-server.
- No connected paid reader call was involved in these refusals.
- This report includes only sanitised error/configuration/task metadata. No full history, logs, source excerpts, private repository content, credentials, patient data or attachments are included or authorised for automatic upload. If more material is needed, please specify the minimum required input and a private supported channel first.
What issue are you seeing?
Requesting service review of two Codex subagent turns that terminated with
codex_error_info: "bio_policy"while performing read-only applicability/coverage critique of public primary literature. We cannot determine the actual triggering input from the returned diagnostics. This is a possible unintended refusal report, not a claim that the safety decision is wrong and not a request to disable safeguards.The reported error was:
The task concerned fluorescent-reporter calibration and nutrient-dependent transcription-factor localization: whether supplied experimental results and methods actually supported the research question. It did not request experimental execution or modification of an organism. A later narrowed request excluded unrelated material, but it was made in the same reviewer thread, so earlier history may still have been present. The trigger remains unknown.
What steps can reproduce the bug?
We are reporting the saved failed invocations rather than attempting a new reproduction. No further rejected-content submission, model/provider/account switch, or filter workaround has been attempted.
01a1207c-767f-7592-9640-2a766bbaffeb.01a1215a-50a9-7983-bc5c-a69118ed25cf; started 2026-10-09 15:48:49 UTC, completed with the refusal at 15:59:08 UTC. Local delegated message: 2,040 UTF-8 bytes; SHA-25633791b3e2506d6c708e89f9c85e93380634d323396c86beb09d20dc488c5a025.01a12165-f313-70c3-8ea8-a94f53dc7298; started 2026-10-09 16:01:31 UTC, completed with the refusal at 16:01:42 UTC. Local delegated message: 1,976 UTF-8 bytes; SHA-25685ff7814ef294b3ed0beb6369ae189f16df3f9fcc93233f41258dddf538130f6.Those message sizes are not total serialized inference input sizes; the reviewer had prior history. No HTTP request/correlation ID or triggering passage/rule was returned. Local task-completion envelopes contained an error, not a successful review.
What is the expected behavior?
Please investigate these saved service outcomes, confirm the appropriate supported review/appeal channel, and provide sufficient diagnostic attribution to distinguish a policy refusal from other failures. We are not requesting a new model answer or automatic clearance. We will preserve both failed attempts and await legitimate review before resuming the affected scientific review.
Additional information
gpt-6.1-sol,high; read-only biology-evidence reviewer task assigned throughcollaboration.followup_taskto a previously existing subagent (agent typedefaultwith the explicit model override).0.162.0; separately installed shell CLI version:0.160.0. This version difference is recorded, not asserted as the cause.