issues: warn #149 off the audit-worktree disposition that claims it is fixed

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Add opt-in, privacy-first server-side Sentry error tracking that is inert without SENTRY_DSN and scrubs request, user, body, breadcrumb, and clinical content before export.
• Surface conservative, normalized source-governance metadata in the RAG prompt so generation can see provenance state without inventing adverse unverified status for empty, index-only, or partial-sibling documents.metadata.
• Document the privacy envelope, operator approval checklist, and rollback path in docs/error-tracking.md.

RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — prompt presentation only adds conservative normalized source-governance metadata; retrieval, ranking, and source selection are unchanged.

Verification

• npm run verify:pr-local
• Focused Vitest for tests/error-tracking.test.ts, tests/rag-source-governance-prompt.test.ts, and tests/source-metadata.test.ts
• npm run eval:rag:offline — 36/36 golden retrieval cases
• npm run check:production-readiness:ci returned READY (offline; expected missing-env warnings)
• npm run build succeeded for production instrumentation wiring
• Merged origin/main and resolved Codex Cloud git-remote helper conflicts; git merge-tree vs origin/main is clean
• UI verification not run: no UI, routing, styling, or browser-behavior changes
• Live answer-generation quality evaluation not run — OpenAI/provider interaction requires explicit owner approval

Risk and rollout

• Risk: medium; optional Sentry path is disabled unless configured, but prompt wording changes answer-generation context and should land only with owner acceptance of offline evidence or an approved live answer-quality check.
• Rollback: revert the squash-merge commit on main, remove SENTRY_DSN and restart services if observability was enabled, and confirm prompts no longer emit the Source governance line.
• Provider or production effects: None unless an operator explicitly sets SENTRY_DSN; no browser DSN, tracing, or source-map upload is configured.

Clinical Governance Preflight

• Source-backed claims still require linked source verification before clinical use
• No patient-identifiable document workflow was introduced or expanded without explicit governance approval
• Supabase target remains Clinical KB Database (sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy)
• Service-role keys and private document access remain server-only
• Demo/synthetic content remains clearly separated from real clinical sources
• Source metadata, review status, and outdated/unknown-source behavior remain conservative
• Deployment classification/TGA SaMD impact was checked when clinical decision-support behavior changed

Notes

• Empty/{}/index-only governance metadata remains unrecorded in prompts; partial sibling fields use neutral unknown rather than inventing adverse unverified; explicit stored clinical_validation_status: "unverified" from upload is preserved.
• Optional Sentry init failures are swallowed so observability cannot block production boot.
• Merge remains gated on approved live answer-quality verification or an explicit owner decision to accept the offline-only evidence.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[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: 49 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: 3c5e4a75-a300-4c36-b803-8faab6e37a5f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between bd06b7a and aa7c316.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/outstanding-issues.md

---

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