diff --git a/.graphlemon/runs/bfd3ee82-26e5-44d6-8acc-fdbeb3d78185/validator_benchmark.md b/.graphlemon/runs/bfd3ee82-26e5-44d6-8acc-fdbeb3d78185/validator_benchmark.md
index 3bc0dd9..28ddf3b 100644
--- a/.graphlemon/runs/bfd3ee82-26e5-44d6-8acc-fdbeb3d78185/validator_benchmark.md
+++ b/.graphlemon/runs/bfd3ee82-26e5-44d6-8acc-fdbeb3d78185/validator_benchmark.md
@@ -1,13 +1,5 @@
-The "graphlemon-node-dccaf7f1a5b94726801a0d5db71da176" Work Node (validator) workflow completed successfully (1 agent, ~117s, 0 errors).
+The validator Work Node workflow (graphlemon-node-77def7e37be44dee86573a65bd9d6f22) completed successfully. It produced a Benchmark artifact — 12 acceptance-test scenarios (T-01 through T-12) for the "控制台导航栏「当前项目」上下文" (console nav bar current-project context) feature, covering: empty-state handling, project name display/link correctness, XSS escaping of project names, status-count accuracy across all 11 real `task.status` values, click-through filtering to the task board, project-switch refresh behavior, race-condition protection on out-of-order network responses, backend API scale/pagination tradeoffs, `#/setup` page consistency, deleted-project degradation, and nav-highlight regression checks.
 
-It produced an independently-derived QA benchmark for the "控制台导航栏「当前项目」上下文" (console nav bar current-project context) feature — covering `frontend/index.html`'s shared `<nav id="nav">` and `frontend/app.js`'s `refreshNavProjectContext()` / `renderNavProjectContextHtml()` / `computeNavStatusBucketCounts()` / `navBucketHref()` / `parseHashQuery()` plus the client-side task-status aggregation strategy.
+It also flagged a discrepancy versus the PRD/SDD summary it was given: the actual `task.status` CHECK constraint in `src/schema.py` enumerates 11 values, not the 10 the summary described — the benchmark was built against the real schema rather than the stale doc description.
 
-Key contents:
-- 9 requirements (R1–R9) traced to concrete test scenarios, deliberately not copied from the Planner's/Coder's own benchmark artifact.
-- Functional scenarios (§2): project selected/zero-tasks/no-project states, click-through routing, 4-bucket status grouping correctness, live count updates on route change, large task-count performance, single vs. multi-status bucket click-through, cross-page consistency, and a race-condition scenario for rapid project switching (stale out-of-order fetch responses must not overwrite newer state).
-- Backend approach validation (§3): confirms the no-new-endpoint (client-side reduction) design actually works end-to-end and is documented with a concrete revisit threshold.
-- Regression scenarios (§4): existing parameterized routes and nav "active" highlighting must survive the new query-string parsing capability.
-- Robustness scenarios (§5): failed project/task fetches degrade cleanly; adversarial (XSS-shaped) project names must never execute as markup.
-- Explicit non-scenarios (§6) and PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE framing (§7).
-
-No source files were changed and no commit was made in this session — the worktree is clean. This is graphlemon's own self-hosting Validator Work Node; its `content` output is meant to be parsed directly into a file by graphlemon's own pipeline (outside this session), consistent with the prior `graphlemon: validator_benchmark artifact for task ...` commits already in this repo's history.
\ No newline at end of file
+No further action was required from me; this artifact is the Work Node's output for the graphlemon task pipeline to consume.
\ No newline at end of file