The important question in a folder loop is when it may open the next item, rather than how the loop is written. Advancing after an uncertain external result accumulates unresolved work. I connected the existing loop to an adapter that requires current-result confirmation and working-copy handling before the next item.
Separate the loop skeleton from the business operation
The existing scheduler reads pending folders and timing, invokes an item function, then continues or stops according to its returned state. Only success increases completion count. Unconfirmed and error states are not instructions to proceed automatically. Actual browser work is delegated through the adapter's item publisher.
The original notebook execution cells are not simply rerun wholesale. The adapter selects imports and function definitions and connects its execution route. Reusing the scheduler function differs from executing every original cell action unchanged. The explanation identifies what is actually borrowed instead of treating reuse as one indivisible claim.
Save dispatching intent before calling the item operation
The adapter chooses the first pending name and requires queued state. It saves a dispatching record before invoking publication. Already verified items are rejected, and other unresolved states do not proceed as fresh work. Intent is retained before the final result exists.
That record is not conclusive delivery evidence: interruption can occur between preparation and the external action. It still distinguishes an unexplained in-progress item from one that was never started. State records should identify uncertainty as well as success, providing material for later inspection instead of erasing the interval in which something may have happened.
After verification, working-copy movement still remains
The adapter requires a verified result, retains it, moves the pending copy into done and saves the journal. An existing done destination stops the operation rather than being overwritten. The original source folder is outside that movement.
External work can succeed while the subsequent directory move fails. The adapter then stops as review-needed and unconfirmed. Treating that as proof of external failure and resending can duplicate the operation. File-handling failure and service-result failure need separate inspection; the retained result and unmoved copy are useful recovery material.
Do not let reused code erase a human stop request
The original scheduler removes its STOP file when starting. The adapter strips that statement from the imported function AST so a stop requested during registration or preparation is not erased at launch. It changes the loaded definition narrowly rather than editing the original notebook file.
Waiting also uses an adapter that checks STOP at short intervals instead of retaining the original long sleep unchanged. Stop meaning is preserved while responsiveness changes. This is not byte-for-byte reuse of every original line. Recording the boundary where reuse meets deliberate modification is an essential part of the maker account.
Use the example to inspect real copies and advancement state
The independent loop copies synthetic files and moves only the current item. Twenty-four tests check that uncertainty, changed copies and move failures block further advancement, using actual original bytes and destination collisions. They do not newly verify every external operation of the original adapter.
This writing extracts and reads only the original scheduler function source through AST. It executes no original notebook, reservation or browser. Declared results in the public example do not authenticate service success. Actual local file tests and read-only examination of the product route retain distinct evidence.
The done location explains the next decision rather than decorating success
Treating done as cosmetic cleanup makes it easy to reorder the failure path carelessly. Its role is to help explain which confirmed result allowed the next item to open. Movement alone is not success, but movement beside its journal narrows the evidence for progress.
Business delivery and document generation share the same concern. Beginning another item before settling the current one is not always faster overall. Avoiding accumulated uncertainty can reduce later recovery work. The useful loop makes the present item's retained state understandable rather than merely cycling through more folders quickly.