issues: capture design-system Track A2-A6 and B1-B4, plus the tap-token blocker from #218

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Capture the design-system Track A and Track B work from docs/design-system/HANDOVER-2026-08-07.md §4 into the durable ledger, so the plan survives the session that read it. Append-only: ten new rows, one existing row updated, nothing removed or reordered.
• #261 A2 — retire --shadow-focus from the search composer (visible focus-state change; docs/search-chrome-behaviour.md first).
• #262 A3 — finish the token debt: --shadow-tight's 155 consumers onto the --eN ladder, a step-selection lint for the eight non-standard type steps, and extending the contract ratchet to raw padding / radius / line-height. Records explicitly that check:type-scale already ships the arbitrary-value half, so no lint should duplicate it.
• #263 A4 — the 13 open COMPONENTS.md §0.4 defect rows, with the roughly five stale ones excluded.
• #264 A5 — gate the six ungated prohibitions. Flagged as the highest-value Track A item: a prohibition with no gate row is a suggestion.
• #265 A6 — gates 2, 4, 7 and 8 from partial to blocking.
• #266 B1 — adopt the 24 unadopted components demand-driven, never as a race to 53/53.
• #267 B2 — AnswerFooter and DoseLine need a provenance/dose payload the answer surface does not yet produce; backend-shaped, do not stub.
• #268 B3 — the 19 genuine bare-dash sites onto MissingValue, with the roughly 5 calculator derived.started ? score : "—" sites recorded as permanently excluded.
• #269 B4 — the per-component visual state matrix, recorded as blocked on #118 and unbuildable on Windows because snapshotPathTemplate carries {platform}.
• #270 — new, from PR feat(design-system): give cn() tailwind-merge (#218) #1678: 22 call sites pair min-h-tap / h-tap with a numeric height that is already dead, which is why --spacing-tap is deliberately absent from the tailwind-merge config. Carries the exact next action and the stop rule (do not instead lower any target to min-h-11).
• #155 updated with new evidence rather than a duplicate row: on 2026-08-07 a concurrent session in the same worktree committed between this session's git add and git commit, sweeping the staged index into a foreign commit and re-pointing the in-use branch. git commit reported "nothing to commit, working tree clean"; only git log -1 revealed it. Adds the check that catches it.

Verification

• npm run check:outstanding-issues — exit 0. "Outstanding-issues guard passed: 268 rows (127 open, 141 archived), unique ids, next-id=271 above the highest, no merge driver, no ids deleted from base 4600268." Self-tests for both the guard and the writer also passed.
• Every row written with npm run issues:add / npm run issues:update, never hand-edited, so ids come from the marker and the table shape is the writer's.
• Visual register refreshed: ISSUES_LIST_UPDATED path=C:\Users\joshs\OneDrive\ISSUES-LIST.html.
• git merge-tree --write-tree origin/main HEAD — clean.

Verification not run: the broader gates. This is a documentation-only, append-only change to a single Prettier-excluded file that no source path imports; check:outstanding-issues is the gate that governs it and it runs in verify:cheap and static-pr.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: low. One markdown file, append-only, guarded by a check that refuses duplicate ids, a stale next-id marker, or a reappearing merge driver.
• Rollback: revert this commit.
• Provider or production effects: None.

Notes

• Companion to feat(design-system): give cn() tailwind-merge (#218) #1678 (Track A1). Kept as a separate PR deliberately: feat(design-system): give cn() tailwind-merge (#218) #1678 adds a dependency and must not carry a ledger-only commit, and this branch must not race that PR's head.
• docs/outstanding-issues.md has no merge driver by design (#133), so if this conflicts, rebuild from origin/main and re-apply only these rows — never take one side wholesale.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[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: 6 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: da7471ed-5490-4b90-bd18-e2391bb2cc82

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3d544aa and fba8352.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/outstanding-issues.md

---

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

[cursor]

Review-and-fix summary — PR #1681

Tip: 60b9c84745dfdf293518d8aca3b8dfe9398a6935 on claude/issues-capture-ds-tracks
Sync / merge-tree: ahead 2 / behind 0 of origin/main; git merge-tree --write-tree clean; GitHub MERGEABLE / CLEAN; auto-merge not armed
Scope: docs-only — docs/outstanding-issues.md (#155 evidence update + #261–#270 DS Track A2–A6 / B1–B4 + tap-token blocker; issues:next-id → 271)

Fixed vs dispositioned

• Fixed: none (no actionable P0–P2 defects on this tip)
• Dispositioned: none (no unresolved review threads; no cursor[bot] Bugbot findings)
• Bugbot: no high-confidence defects
• Human review: no high-confidence PR-introduced defects — ids unique, marker above highest, #155 expanded (not truncated), new rows absent on main

Required CI (this tip)

Check	Result
PR required	pass
Static PR checks	pass
Change scope	pass
PR policy	pass
PR mergeability	pass
Production UI / Build / Safety	skipping (docs scope; expected)

Decisive local proof

npm run check:outstanding-issues
→ Outstanding-issues guard passed: 268 rows (127 open, 141 archived), unique ids, next-id=271 above the highest, no merge driver, no ids deleted from base 1ff9ed206456.

Also: npm run check:branch-review-ledger passed after the local ledger append.

Residual risks

• Concurrent append race on docs/outstanding-issues.md remains (tracked as #156 / #168) — not introduced by this PR.
• Ledger babysit row appended locally only (not pushed to this PR tip — ledger-only tip policy). Future agents: ledger:lookup -- claude/issues-capture-ds-tracks --head 60b9c847… --scope review-and-fix once the row lands on main.

Merge left to you. No push, no force-push, no auto-merge arm from this pass.