docs: record that #101 hydration shipped

[BigSimmo]

Summary

Two append-only memory records closing out the X3/#101 hydration extraction (PR #1463, squashed as dba7356f). Bundled into one PR per AGENTS.md § "PR bundling" — both are docs-only, each in its own separately revertible commit.

• issues: #086 now records hydration as shipped. The row still read "Next X3 unit — rag-hydration.ts" after that unit had already landed. It now records the extraction as shipped and keeps the corrected boundary: hydration re-homed only two of prepareCoverageGateResults's five rag.ts-only dependencies, so it did not unblock that function — exactly as the Codex review on PR docs: record the landed X3 coverage-gate review and capture its two follow-ups #1461 predicted, and confirmed by shipping it.
• docs(ledger): the refactor(rag): extract per-request hydration #1463 review row. Appended with npm run ledger:append (never hand-written), keyed to dba7356f so ledger:lookup resolves it. Verified the recorded HEAD is a real, resolvable 40-char SHA matching main.

Why these are separate from #1463

The #086 row was deliberately dropped from #1463 (commit 6290d02a) after docs/outstanding-issues.md conflicted on five consecutive main syncs — that file had no merge driver and Prettier realigned the whole table on every edit, so a one-line change produced a 74/72-line diff that collided with every concurrent ledger commit. Dropping it made #1463 conflict-immune; recording it separately here is the same pattern used for #1454 via #1461.

Worth noting: #1479 ("stop Prettier padding the issues table, closing #133") landed on main in the meantime and fixes that root cause. This PR is the evidence — the same edit that previously produced a 74/72-line diff is now 1 insertion, 1 deletion.

No source, test, config, or workflow file is touched.

Verification

• npm run verify:cheap

During development, use npm run verify:cheap as the faster iteration gate before the final PR-local preflight.

• npm run verify:ui when UI, routing, styling, browser behavior, reduced-motion, or forced-colors behavior changed
• npm run verify:release before release or handoff confidence claims

For retrieval, ranking, selection, chunking, source/citation rendering, or answer-contract changes, verify:pr-local runs eval:rag:offline automatically. Run the offline command directly during iteration before spending a live eval.

• npm run eval:retrieval:quality (must stay 36/36) when retrieval, ranking, selection, chunking, or scoring behavior changed — CI cannot run it (needs live keys), so run it locally and paste the summary. A metadata/governance-weighting change once buried correct docs (recall 1.0→0.76) and only this eval caught it.
• npm run eval:rag -- --limit 15 + npm run eval:quality -- --rag-only when answer generation, the synthesis prompt, or answer post-processing changed (grounded-supported must not drop; citation-failure 0)
• npm run check:production-readiness when clinical workflow, privacy, environment, Supabase, source governance, or deployment behavior changed
• npm run check:deployment-readiness when deployment startup, hosting, or rollout behavior changed

UI verification not run: docs-only diff, no UI, routing, styling, browser, reduced-motion, or forced-colors surface touched.

Verification not run (provider-backed): eval:retrieval:quality, eval:rag, eval:quality --rag-only, check:production-readiness, check:deployment-readiness — all call live OpenAI/Supabase, none is relevant to a docs-only diff, and none was run. No live evaluation, canary, ingestion, deployment, or release operation occurred.

Gates run

Command	Exit	Decisive output
npm run check:outstanding-issues	0	146 rows (56 open, 90 archived), unique ids, next-id=149 above the highest, no merge driver, no ids deleted from base dba7356fc8dc
npm run check:branch-review-ledger	0	209 live table records + 1206 archived …, ledger merge active, six cells each, no conflict markers, mojibake, heading records, or duplicates
npm run format:check	0	All matched files use Prettier code style!
npm run verify:cheap	0	Test Files 442 passed (442) / Tests 4625 passed | 4 skipped (4629)
git diff --check	0	no whitespace errors

Risk and rollout

• Risk: MINIMAL. Two append-only memory records; no executable code path, schema, config, or workflow touched.
• Rollback: git revert either commit independently; they share no file.
• Provider or production effects: None. GitHub was used only to fetch main, push this branch, and open this PR.

Notes

• Post-merge verification of refactor(rag): extract per-request hydration #1463 was done by content, not by trusting the merge notice: src/lib/rag/rag-hydration.ts present on main at 252 lines, rag.ts at 4543, budget 4543, both public re-exports intact, the moved bodies byte-identical to their pre-move originals, and a full branch-vs-main diff empty (nothing orphaned by the squash).
• docs/branch-review-ledger.md remains append-only: no existing row was edited or deleted.
• The branch name is reused but this is a new PR off the merged main — per AGENTS.md, follow-up work restarts from the default branch rather than stacking on merged history.

RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — docs-only records, no src/lib/rag/** file touched

---

Generated by Claude Code

[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]

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: 52 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: 466a1a50-48d5-40bd-abf4-df0922764419

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 387c3b6 and 992eaf1.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• docs/branch-review-ledger.md
• docs/maturity-backlog-workorders.md
• docs/outstanding-issues.md

---

_{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: 01c58836b3

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".