issues: record the two catalogue-format debts left by PR #1532

[BigSimmo]

Summary

Append-only docs change. Records the two catalogue-format debts that PR #1532 left behind, so neither is carried only in chat.

• #179 — public/therapy-compass-data/therapies.json silently went from a single minified line to 18,400 pretty-printed ones when the tag-echo modality scrub routed it through syncTarget. Measured at +123,354 bytes raw (+4.9%) but only +3,409 bytes gzipped (+1.0%), and it is not JavaScript so check:bundle-budget never sees it. The real cost is roughly 37,000 lines of git churn per data revision, counting the content-addressed twin — which is why fix: remediate the PR #1489 review findings #1532 read as 42,071 insertions when only 381 were hand-written. Set against reviewable diffs on a 205-record clinical dataset, keeping it is probably right; the point of the row is that the format should be a decision rather than a side effect.
• #180 — the same change made the generator write its curated output back over the file it reads as source. It is stable only because curatedModality is a fixed point. It matters because #175 asks someone to hand-curate modality values in exactly that file, and the next generator run could discard that edit with no gate to catch it: --check compares the file against what the generator would produce, so a clobbered hand edit reads as current.

Verification

• npm run check:outstanding-issues — 178 rows (61 open, 117 archived), unique ids, next-id=181 above the highest, no merge driver, no ids deleted from base 6c505965e163
• npx prettier --check docs/outstanding-issues.md — All matched files use Prettier code style!

Verification not run: npm run verify:pr-local — the diff is a single append-only markdown file with no code, test, config or schema change; the ledger's own gate plus the format check are the checks that apply to it.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: none. Documentation only; no runtime, build, schema or CI behaviour is touched.
• Rollback: revert this commit.
• Provider or production effects: None.

Notes

• Both rows came out of the PR fix: remediate the PR #1489 review findings #1532 review conversation after #175–#178 had already been written, which is why they are a separate append rather than edits to those rows.
• #175 was re-checked and is still accurate as written: all three payloads (full, index, home) now carry a curated modality, so its statement that the detail and recommend chips no longer render holds.
• No new row was added for concurrent agents editing one branch — that is already tracked as #155.

[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.

[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: 14 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: 5bf34db4-fb43-43e8-8bb4-07ca703a9069

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6c50596 and 0605bac.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/outstanding-issues.md

---

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

[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 ↗︎.

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

Document therapy-catalogue formatting and source-overwrite debts from #1532

📝 Documentation 🕐 Less than 10 minutes

AI Description

• Add ledger rows #179–#180 capturing therapy catalogue formatting and generator source-overwrite
 debts.
• Bump the outstanding-issues next-id marker to 181 to preserve append-only invariants.

Diagram

graph TD
  A["Contributor"] --> B["docs/outstanding-issues.md"] --> C["New rows #179–#180"]
  B --> D["npm: check:outstanding-issues"] --> E["ID/marker validation"]
  B --> F["prettier --check"] --> G["Markdown formatting"]
  B --> H["Reviewers"]
  subgraph Legend
    direction LR
    _p["Person"] ~~~ _f["File"] ~~~ _s["Script/check"]
  end

Loading

High-Level Assessment

The following are alternative approaches to this PR:

1. Capture debts as inline code comments near the generator/sync point

• ➕ Puts the rationale directly next to the code that causes the behavior
• ➕ More likely to be seen/updated when the generator is modified
• ➖ Harder to discover as a prioritized backlog item
• ➖ Less suited for tracking ownership/priority/history like the ledger

2. Open GitHub Issues for #179/#180 and link from the ledger

• ➕ First-class tracking (assignees, labels, notifications, cross-repo visibility)
• ➕ Easier to reference from future PRs and automate reminders
• ➖ Splits the backlog across two systems unless disciplined
• ➖ May lose the “append-only, single-file” audit trail the ledger provides

3. Write a short ADR documenting the chosen catalogue serialization policy

• ➕ Clarifies the decision and trade-offs (reviewability vs churn vs wire size)
• ➕ Provides a durable reference beyond an issue row
• ➖ More overhead than needed until a concrete change is planned
• ➖ Doesn’t by itself create a tracked work item with next steps

Recommendation: Keep this PR’s approach: recording the two debts as append-only ledger rows is the lowest-risk way to preserve review context and ensure the issues aren’t trapped in PR chat. If/when the generator is revisited, consider adding a brief inline comment (or ADR) to make the rationale visible at the modification point.

Files changed (1) +3 / -1

Documentation (1) +3 / -1

outstanding-issues.mdAppend ledger rows #179–#180 and advance next-id marker +3/-1

Append ledger rows #179–#180 and advance next-id marker

• Updates the 'issues:next-id' marker from 179 to 181 and appends two new open items (#179 and #180). The new rows document (1) the unintended switch of the full therapy catalogue JSON from minified to pretty-printed, and (2) the generator now overwriting the same file it treats as source input, creating a risk of clobbering hand edits.

docs/outstanding-issues.md

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📎 Requirement gaps (0)

Great, no issues found!

Qodo reviewed your code and found no material issues that require review

_{To customize comments, go to the Qodo configuration screen, or learn more in the docs.}