An operator can edit a completed item's body and run the same cell again. Returning only the old success would make the new body appear processed. I compare current content and definition before reusing an item result. The question here is the review required after an edit, beyond the general role of identifiers.
Assume input may change after preparation
Input, preparation and execution occupy separate notebook cells. An operator can edit values after reviewing a prepared plan. Run requests preparation again, and item execution resolves current values again rather than retaining an old plan as permanent permission.
The compared values include the merge of definition defaults and supplied input. Explaining a fingerprint requires knowing what actually enters that merge. A visible edit in one cell and the final data reaching the execution layer cannot simply be assumed identical. Diagnosis needs the current value-construction path, not only the interface gesture.
Check changed input before returning a completed result
An existing item first passes input and definition comparisons; only then may its succeeded result be reused. Reversing that order would let an old success bypass review of new material. Input changes and code changes produce distinct rejection reasons.
Equal definition and equal values are different questions. Editing the body calls for a decision about handling new material, while changing code calls for examining which version produced the old result. Combining both into one retry message would discard the reason further review is necessary and encourage the wrong corrective action.
A fingerprint does not judge the meaning of a paragraph
Item fingerprinting sorts keys and values. Reordered mapping keys and changed string whitespace are different kinds of change. Similar meaning does not make two paragraphs identical; changed source text can require another input review. The comparison preserves the boundary between examined material and material about to be delivered.
Equal fingerprints do not establish factual correctness either. A retained date or figure may be wrong for the new occasion. Identity comparison cannot replace editorial judgment. The digest reports a difference; it does not decide what the revised material should mean or how the operation should proceed.
Do not change the identity merely to remove an error
Changing job or item identity immediately after an input-change error steps outside the original journal relationship. Legitimate new work may need another item, but an uncertain earlier mutation first needs its service result reconciled. A new identifier does not remove that uncertainty.
The operator needs to distinguish revised material, the actual completion of the original operation and whether another execution is presently intended. Automatically recreating an item just to clear an error would hide those questions. A precise refusal can preserve the very review that the workflow needs instead of treating every visible error as an obstacle to bypass.
Do not resend the entire input merely for diagnosis
Program status removes item fingerprints and definition hashes while returning state, run location, results and errors. It does not directly return the input mapping. Results can still contain material derived from input, so this filter is not a universal anonymizer for every sensitive value.
Existing tests separately reject changed input, definition and profile, and block replay of unresolved mutation. Fixture result objects and real workplace material have different disclosure properties. This writing reads the code without newly comparing or sending customer input. Minimal diagnostic evidence and publishable explanation remain separate scopes.
An edit should make the success message inspectable again
An operator can change one value while the program continues saying finished. Preventing that gap requires tying success to the input and definition that actually produced it. Reuse should provide an accurate explanation, not merely a fast reassuring response.
Business quotations, reporting periods and attachments have the same problem. Earlier completion must not spread to a present revision. Identifying what changed and requiring the relevant review can improve practical convenience by avoiding the cost of moving on under a false completion claim, even when it adds a deliberate pause before another operation.