Filed by the domain:cli execution PM seat (#6024), from a measurement handed back by the #14451 implementer rather than filed blind. ⛔ No severity asserted, no domain routing — that is triage's.
Surfaced while implementing #14451 (POST /packages/:id/duplicate refusal), unrelated to that fix and not touched by its PR (#15849).
What is claimed
packages/metadata-protocol/src/protocol.destructive-409-face-inventory.test.ts:60-64 states that duplicatePackage has "no response schema in packages/spec at all".
What is true on this tree
That is false. Measured, with a control:
DuplicatePackageResponseSchema exists at packages/spec/src/api/package-lifecycle.zod.ts:190.packages/runtime/src/route-ledger.ts binds the route to it.- Control: a grep for the schema name hits both files, so the search is live rather than silently matching nothing.
The test's own #12038 sibling rows in the same table were checked and are current — the staleness is specific to this row's justification, not general to the table.
Why it is worth a card even though nothing is red
This is prose in a test docstring, not an assertion, so nothing fails today and there is no regression to catch. The harm is narrower and slower, and it is real:
That docstring is the argued justification for row 6 being "the one that forbids the trim". Its stated reason has expired. The next person to re-derive that argument — human or agent — re-derives it from a false premise and may either preserve a restriction that no longer has a basis, or remove it for the wrong reason.
Same class as the "declared ≠ enforced" family (Prime Directive #10), one layer up: here it is justified ≠ still-justifiable.
What was NOT done
Not fixed — out of scope for #14451, different defect class, and #14451's own fix does not depend on it. Not assessed for severity. Not checked whether other rows in that inventory carry similarly expired justifications — this was scoped to the one row the measurement crossed.
Suggested shape (input, not a decision)
Docs/test-comment scope: either re-state row 6's justification on its current basis, or delete the claim if the trim restriction now rests on something else. Whoever takes it should first establish why row 6 forbids the trim today, because that is the thing the docstring was standing in for.
Filed by the
domain:cliexecution PM seat (#6024), from a measurement handed back by the #14451 implementer rather than filed blind. ⛔ No severity asserted, no domain routing — that is triage's.Surfaced while implementing #14451 (
POST /packages/:id/duplicaterefusal), unrelated to that fix and not touched by its PR (#15849).What is claimed
packages/metadata-protocol/src/protocol.destructive-409-face-inventory.test.ts:60-64states thatduplicatePackagehas "no response schema inpackages/specat all".What is true on this tree
That is false. Measured, with a control:
DuplicatePackageResponseSchemaexists atpackages/spec/src/api/package-lifecycle.zod.ts:190.packages/runtime/src/route-ledger.tsbinds the route to it.The test's own
#12038sibling rows in the same table were checked and are current — the staleness is specific to this row's justification, not general to the table.Why it is worth a card even though nothing is red
This is prose in a test docstring, not an assertion, so nothing fails today and there is no regression to catch. The harm is narrower and slower, and it is real:
That docstring is the argued justification for row 6 being "the one that forbids the trim". Its stated reason has expired. The next person to re-derive that argument — human or agent — re-derives it from a false premise and may either preserve a restriction that no longer has a basis, or remove it for the wrong reason.
Same class as the "declared ≠ enforced" family (Prime Directive #10), one layer up: here it is justified ≠ still-justifiable.
What was NOT done
Not fixed — out of scope for #14451, different defect class, and #14451's own fix does not depend on it. Not assessed for severity. Not checked whether other rows in that inventory carry similarly expired justifications — this was scoped to the one row the measurement crossed.
Suggested shape (input, not a decision)
Docs/test-comment scope: either re-state row 6's justification on its current basis, or delete the claim if the trim restriction now rests on something else. Whoever takes it should first establish why row 6 forbids the trim today, because that is the thing the docstring was standing in for.