feat(mockups): two studies for consolidating the answer-home notices

[BigSimmo]

Summary

Two design-scratch studies of the same problem: the answer-mode hero stacks three notices below the composer — the APP-5 privacy warning (11px muted), a bare /privacy link, and the accent-blue scope footer (14px semibold) — in three type sizes with two opposing shield icons (ShieldAlert amber vs ShieldCheck blue, ~40px apart). The least important of the three, the capability claim, is visually the loudest. Nothing on the screen says the answer is generated and must be checked.

• /mockups/warning-consolidation — first pass, "one block instead of three." Three consolidations at desktop 1440 and phone 390, beside the current stack for comparison: 01 Assurance bar (one row, descriptive half behind a Details disclosure, wraps rather than clipping so a safety line is never truncated), 02 Safety card (two tiers — obligation on a warning-tinted top row, everything descriptive in one grey voice below; single shield metaphor), and 03 Quiet footnote (one centred grey sentence with an inline expander). Recommendation: 02 on the hero, 01 on the docked composer — the same content model at two densities, so one component with a density prop covers both.
• /mockups/warning-line — second pass, "words only, one line." No icon, no border, no tint, no background. Six variants A–F, each a single paragraph under the composer. Line counts are measured from the rendered DOM, not asserted: only B (middot clauses), D (obligation + verify) and F (compressed obligation) hold one line at desktop width, and none do on a 390px phone while the pinned APP-5 sentence stays verbatim. Recommendation: D — the only compliant variant that is both one line and keeps hierarchy, achieved by dropping the scope claim, which is a capability statement already visible on the answer itself.
• Adds the statement both studies found missing: "Answers are AI-generated — verify against the cited source before clinical use." Other modes carry an equivalent ("Clinical decision support only. Review before use.", "Confirm against source"); answer mode carries none.
• Suppresses the shared mockup chrome and composer on both routes (mockups-layout-client.tsx), since each study draws its own composer and the notice under study is the one the shared composer renders.
• Regenerates docs/site-map.md for the two new routes.
• Bundled, separately revertible: records the follow-ups in docs/outstanding-issues.md — #151 (adopt a consolidated notice block), #152 (answer mode ships no verify-before-use caveat, which stands independently of any redesign) and #153 (verify:pr-local exits 0 when its own build step refuses to run).

The two pinned governance strings — Do not enter patient-identifiable information. and the Privacy and data processing link to /privacy — are reproduced verbatim in every concept except F, which shortens the obligation to show what a single phone line would actually cost and is labelled on the page as requiring governance sign-off rather than presented as freely available. Both studies state the constraint on their face so a later reader cannot mistake it for a design preference.

No production surface changes. Mockups 404 in production (mockupsEnabled()), and classifyPullRequestFiles returns clinicalRisk: false, operationalRisk: false, ragRanking: false, ui: true for this diff.

Verification

• npm run verify:pr-local — 434 test files / 4563 passed, 4 skipped. Its conditional build step self-skipped on the first run (Refusing to run next build while Clinical KB dev server is running), so npm run build was re-run separately with the dev server stopped: build completed and Client bundle secret surface check passed. That silent self-skip is now tracked as #153.
• npm run lint (--max-warnings 0) and npm run typecheck — clean, exit 0
• npm run sitemap:check — clean after sitemap:update
• tests/route-reachability.test.ts — 5 passed
• npm run check:outstanding-issues — 151 rows (58 open, 93 archived), unique ids, next-id=154 above the highest, no ids deleted from base
• npx prettier --check . — All matched files use Prettier code style!
• Both routes rendered in Chromium at 1440px and 390px: HTTP 200, zero console or page errors. Three defects were found and fixed this way — concept 01 was clipping its own safety text, the privacy link was breaking mid-phrase in concept 02, and the second study's own header claimed all six variants fit one line when measurement showed only three do.
• The one Codex review finding (P2 — the privacy label was an inert <span>) is fixed and the thread resolved: every instance now renders <Link href="/privacy">, verified in Chromium as focusable a[href="/privacy"] anchors, up from zero.

UI verification not run: npm run verify:ui covers production journeys, and this diff adds only design-scratch routes that 404 in production and touches no shipped component. Direct browser rendering at both breakpoints is the proof above.

Red checks seen on this PR, none caused by the diff:

• Static PR checks hit its timeout-minutes: 20 mid-typecheck on bf4328f. A timed-out job reports as cancelled, so the aggregate emitted its stock "superseded" message even though no newer push existed. Identical content cleared static-pr in 2m 27s earlier the same day.
• One ui-phone-scroll phone-chrome test failed once on 9b4bea1 with 120 others passing; it passed locally against a production build in 7.4s and passed again on the next CI run with no code change. Not quarantined — repo policy needs three reproductions on one SHA.
• Repeated PR required cancellations from branch syncs cancelling near-complete runs (main's own #145), and four docs/outstanding-issues.md id collisions as main claimed #141–#150 across one day (#133). Each collision was resolved by renumbering the incoming rows per the ledger's own rule, never by taking one side wholesale; main's row ids were verified present after every resolution.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: None to production behaviour — the only non-mockup files changed are a generated doc (docs/site-map.md), append-only ledger rows, and two route-specific branches in the mockup layout client.
• Rollback: revert the commits; no data, schema, or config migration involved.
• Provider or production effects: None.

Clinical Governance Preflight

Not applicable to this diff, and deliberately not half-filled: nothing here reaches ingestion, answer generation, search/ranking, source rendering, document access, privacy behaviour, production env, or clinical output. Both studies reproduce governance copy as static text in routes that 404 in production.

That preflight does become required for the follow-up that adopts any concept (#151), and that follow-up is a governance change as much as a design one:

• PrivacyInputNotice is the single site-wide APP-5 line and renders on the answer, documents, and calculators composers — consolidating it changes all three.
• The added verification sentence is new clinical-safety copy and needs governance sign-off on the wording, not just design review (#152).
• Variant F additionally rewrites the pinned APP-5 obligation, which would require updating tests/privacy-ui.test.ts alongside a privacy decision.
• tests/privacy-ui.test.ts, tests/ui-accessibility.spec.ts, and the phone-chrome reserve coverage all assert against the current markup and would need updating together.

Notes

• The two studies answer different briefs and are both kept rather than one superseding the other: the first asks what a consolidated block should look like, the second what a consolidated line should look like. If the line direction wins, the first study's diagnosis section still stands as the rationale.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Added mockup pages for answer-home proposals, warning consolidation, and warning-line concepts.
  • Added responsive phone and desktop previews with interactive notice examples, annotations, trade-offs, and recommendations.
  • Added dedicated routes for the new mockups and included them in the site map.
  • New mockups present consolidated privacy, verification, and clinical-safety messaging options.

• Documentation

  • Updated review records and outstanding-issue tracking.
  • Added three newly identified open items and updated the next available issue ID.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in: 40 minutes

Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f58accac-853d-4c19-9374-e0b824bfcd29

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9418104 and ed3887a.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/outstanding-issues.md

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Added three mockup routes for answer-home and warning-notice proposals. Added route-specific chrome suppression, responsive mockup pages, governance notes, sitemap entries, and related issue and review ledger records.

Changes

Mockup route and tracking integration

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Tracking and route inventory docs/branch-review-ledger.md, docs/outstanding-issues.md, docs/site-map.md	Recorded review activity, added outstanding issues, advanced the issue ID marker, and listed the three new mockup routes.
Mockup route wiring src/app/mockups/..., src/app/mockups/mockups-layout-client.tsx	Added route components and hid shared search and chrome for the new mockup pages.

Answer-home proposal

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Answer-home proposal mockup src/components/answer-home-proposal-mockups.tsx	Added responsive before-and-after panels, consolidated footer notices, subtitle changes, six proposal notes, and governance sign-off markers.

Warning concepts

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Warning-consolidation concepts src/components/warning-consolidation-mockups.tsx	Added three notice concepts with responsive previews, expandable details, governance notes, recommendations, and rollout constraints.
Warning-line concepts src/components/warning-line-mockups.tsx	Added six warning compositions with line counts, trade-offs, governance status, responsive previews, and a toggleable stack example.

Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
  participant Browser
  participant MockupsLayoutClient
  participant MockupRoute
  participant MockupPage
  Browser->>MockupsLayoutClient: Open mockup route
  MockupsLayoutClient->>MockupsLayoutClient: Detect route and suppress shared UI
  MockupsLayoutClient->>MockupRoute: Render route component
  MockupRoute->>MockupPage: Render responsive mockup

Loading

Possibly related PRs

• BigSimmo/Database#576: Related answer-home privacy-notice and verification-copy changes.
• BigSimmo/Database#1015: Related mockup routing and shared composer suppression.
• BigSimmo/Database#1421: Related outstanding-issue ledger updates.

Suggested reviewers: claude

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 28.57% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the two mockup studies and their purpose of consolidating answer-home notices.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description covers the required summary, verification, risk, rollback, production effects, governance status, and implementation notes.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1

📝 Generate docstrings 💡

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 74978b94db

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[BigSimmo]

@codex resolve actionable Codex review findings for this pull request and current head using the repository instructions. This is the pull request's single automatic repair pass: do not perform a fresh review, create new standalone findings, or request another review. Work only the existing unresolved Codex threads on the current head. Always fix P0 and P1 findings. For P2 and lower findings, fix only clear, scoped, low-risk issues; otherwise disposition them with a concise reason. After fixing or dispositioning a thread, reply in that thread with as the first line, followed by a concise summary; that marker authorizes the workflow to close that exact thread. If human input or new authorization is required, do not use the marker and leave the thread open with the blocker. Finish only after every actionable thread is fixed or dispositioned and closed, or explicitly left open for a human decision. Do not update the branch from main, address unrelated reviews, broaden scope, or create more than one scoped fix commit. Do not use external APIs, paid services, credentials, dependency changes, or broad refactors unless explicitly authorized. Add targeted tests where behavior changes and run the narrowest relevant validation.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 👍

Reviewed commit: 74978b94db

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[BigSimmo]

Temporarily paused during the owner-authorized ordered merge sweep so main cannot move between exact-head review and merge. The branch and all commits are preserved; this PR will be reopened at its verified place in the queue.

[BigSimmo]

@cursoragent this PR will be re-opened soon. Please resolve any failing CI, run bugbot and resolve any bugbot comments against current repo and fix any merge conflicts and also fix any errors and address and fix all comments or suggestions that are likely to improve the PR and Codebase. Please implement smallest required fix according to best code practices. Check your work. Leave this PR closed for now but still make all these changes and run the review. I want it ready to go for when I re-open it.

[cursor]

PR #1437 is ready to reopen and left CLOSED.

Done

• Merged origin/main; only conflict was docs/outstanding-issues.md
• Renumbered this PR’s follow-ups to #155 / #156 / #157 (next-id=158); kept main’s #151–#154
• git merge-tree vs main: clean; branch tip d3647e71 is 0 behind / 37 ahead
• Bugbot/review P2s fixed: warning-line “today” /privacy Link; F line-count claim; study-1 governance honesty; recommended concept 01 keeps pinned APP-5 on-bar
• Codex Cloud origin false-positive fixed (git config --get remote.origin.url vs rewritten get-url)
• npm run verify:pr-local: 444 files / 4646 passed, build + client-bundle check + offline RAG green

Left as-is

• PR stays CLOSED (as requested)
• Closed PR metadata still shows frozen head 541a5185 — remote branch tip is d3647e71. On reopen, confirm GitHub attaches the current branch tip
• Could not edit the PR body or post Bugbot comments (403 for this integration). On reopen, update the body: follow-ups are #155–#157, and include /mockups/answer-home-proposal
• Prior Codex privacy-Link thread remains resolved; no open review threads

On reopen

1. Reopen PR feat(mockups): two studies for consolidating the answer-home notices #1437
2. Confirm head = claude/warning-consolidation-mockups-09jyj7 tip
3. Refresh PR body issue IDs if GitHub still shows the old text
4. Let CI / Bugbot run against the new tip

  

[supabase]

This pull request has been ignored for the connected project sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy because there are no changes detected in supabase directory. You can change this behaviour in Project Integrations Settings ↗︎.

---

Preview Branches by Supabase.
Learn more about Supabase Branching ↗︎.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

src/components/warning-line-mockups.tsx (1)

19-20: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win

Consider a single shared source for the pinned governance strings.

OBLIGATION and PRIVACY_LINK are declared independently in this file, in warning-consolidation-mockups.tsx, and in answer-home-proposal-mockups.tsx. All three copies must stay byte-identical to the text pinned by tests/privacy-ui.test.ts. Extracting them to one shared module (for example next to src/lib/ui-copy.ts, already referenced in these files' comments) would remove the risk of one copy drifting from the pinned wording while the others do not.

♻️ Proposed shared-constants extraction

// src/lib/warning-notice-copy.ts
export const PINNED_OBLIGATION = "Do not enter patient-identifiable information.";
export const PINNED_PRIVACY_LINK = "Privacy and data processing";

-const OBLIGATION = "Do not enter patient-identifiable information.";
-const PRIVACY_LINK = "Privacy and data processing";
+import { PINNED_OBLIGATION as OBLIGATION, PINNED_PRIVACY_LINK as PRIVACY_LINK } from "`@/lib/warning-notice-copy`";

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@src/components/warning-line-mockups.tsx` around lines 19 - 20, Extract the
shared governance strings into one module, such as warning-notice-copy.ts,
exporting symbols for the pinned obligation and privacy link text. Update the
declarations and usages in warning-line-mockups.tsx,
warning-consolidation-mockups.tsx, and answer-home-proposal-mockups.tsx to
import those shared symbols, preserving the exact byte-identical wording
required by tests/privacy-ui.test.ts.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/outstanding-issues.md`:
- Line 148: Update the stale renumbering reference within row `#165` so it no
longer points to unrelated rows: replace the inline `#156/`#157/#158 sequence with
the current `#165/`#166/#167 identifiers, or remove that historical renumbering
clause while preserving the rest of the row.

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@src/components/warning-line-mockups.tsx`:
- Around line 19-20: Extract the shared governance strings into one module, such
as warning-notice-copy.ts, exporting symbols for the pinned obligation and
privacy link text. Update the declarations and usages in
warning-line-mockups.tsx, warning-consolidation-mockups.tsx, and
answer-home-proposal-mockups.tsx to import those shared symbols, preserving the
exact byte-identical wording required by tests/privacy-ui.test.ts.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 24af28ba-14ee-4753-b36e-b8eae069e02e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3b4872f and 9418104.

📒 Files selected for processing (10)

• docs/branch-review-ledger.md
• docs/outstanding-issues.md
• docs/site-map.md
• src/app/mockups/answer-home-proposal/page.tsx
• src/app/mockups/mockups-layout-client.tsx
• src/app/mockups/warning-consolidation/page.tsx
• src/app/mockups/warning-line/page.tsx
• src/components/answer-home-proposal-mockups.tsx
• src/components/warning-consolidation-mockups.tsx
• src/components/warning-line-mockups.tsx