docs(issues): capture the stale design-system handover, and the completeness half of the lock-parity gap

[BigSimmo]

Summary

Docs-only, one file. Two follow-ups from the #263 close-out that currently exist only in one session's context.

• #277 (new) — docs/design-system/HANDOVER-2026-08-07.md is cited as provenance by nine open rows but is measurably wrong. Rows #261, #262, #264–#270 all carry session 2026-08-07 — design-system HANDOVER-2026-08-07 Track A1 handoff (PR #1678) as their Source, and docs/design-system/README.md links it as "measured state, the ordered plan". Four of its figures have since been disproved and corrected into the rows, not the document, which still asserts the originals:

  • 229 --shadow-tight aliases is the seven-token legacyShadowAliases total mislabelled as one token — the real figure is 100 sites across 55 files, total 228.
  • Adoption was recorded as 24 unadopted against a measured 23.
  • "Baselines cannot be generated on Windows" is half true and led to the wrong conclusion; the ubuntu CI job already produces the ones that count.
  • #270's "22 call sites pair a tap token with a dead numeric height" does not survive re-measurement at all — zero same-variant pairs, 84 cross-variant responsive step-downs that are not dead.

  The failure mode is specific: a session scoping work from it gets the wrong numbers with full provenance. Recommended fix is a superseded banner naming the rows as current truth, not a rewrite — duplicating the corrections is what re-creates the drift.

• #149 — the lock-parity gap has a completeness half, not just a version half. The row treated this as transitive version drift. Measured 2026-08-08 it is also structural. Two npm install runs killed mid-extraction (a concurrent session ran npm cache clean; both exited 127 with an empty log) left a node_modules that check:installed-lock-parity passed — every package present at its locked version — while @testing-library/dom/types/index.d.ts was 0 bytes and @types/node was six files short, missing web-globals/importmeta.d.ts. That produced 163 phantom tsc errors (135 × TS2305 "no exported member 'screen'", plus ImportMeta.dirname / Timeout / unref) indistinguishable from real breakage, and a missing @rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc killed Vitest with ERR_DLOPEN_FAILED.

  A version comparison of any width cannot catch this — the installed files were the right version and merely incomplete — so the row now asks for a completeness check beside the version one. The detection that worked (run the gate against pristine origin/main content; an identical error count proves the tree innocent) and the repair that worked (rm -rf node_modules, then one npm install <package-already-in-the-manifest> to reify from the lockfile without touching the manifest) are both recorded.

Verification

• npm run check:outstanding-issues — passed: 275 rows (132 open, 143 archived), unique ids, next-id=278 above the highest, no merge driver, no ids deleted from base 5c0504a40615.
• npx prettier --check . — passed whole-tree: All matched files use Prettier code style!
• Both edits made with npm run issues:add / issues:update, never by hand.
• No source, config or test file is touched, so no unit, lint, typecheck or browser gate applies.

Note for sequencing: PR #1724 also edits docs/outstanding-issues.md (it closes #276). The two touch different sections — a closure plus queue-row removal there, an append plus one detail cell here — so they should merge independently, and that file deliberately has no merge driver, meaning any real overlap will conflict loudly rather than silently concatenate.

🤖 Generated with 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: 36 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: 1651bb0f-5235-4623-80a2-656dec585884

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2069b1f and b07c475.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• 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: b2f861c3d2

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".

[cursor]

Review-and-fix summary (PR #1725)

Tip: b07c47569b2c262e867d69f99181f3d8ced7b4d7 on claude/ds-capture-followups
Sync / merge-tree: ahead 3 / behind 0 vs origin/main; git merge-tree clean; MERGEABLE (no sync needed). Auto-merge not armed.
Bugbot: no Bugbot findings on this tip.
Review: no additional high-confidence product defects beyond the two Codex P2s on the new/updated ledger rows (docs-only PR).

Fixed

1. #149 completeness gap (Codex P2) — row now requires a completeness method that rejects structurally incomplete installs when arbitrary non-entry package files are missing, with a fixture that deletes a non-entry path while leaving entry points intact. Shallow zero-byte / main/types checks alone are called out as insufficient.
2. #277 deletion vs archive (Codex P2) — removed the “delete the handover” option; remedy is superseded banner and/or move to docs/archive/ with inbound-link updates per docs/README.md.

Dispositioned

• Inline reply and issue-comment posts failed (403 Resource not accessible by integration); both review threads were resolved via GraphQL. Dispositions above stand in for the missing inline markers (fixed-head:b07c47569b2c262e867d69f99181f3d8ced7b4d7).

Required CI

• Prior tip 6a096c7c: PR required green; Production UI correctly skipped (docs-only).
• Current tip b07c4756: required checks re-queued after push; treat as in progress, not green-yet.

Local proof

• npm run check:outstanding-issues — passed: 275 rows (132 open, 143 archived), unique ids, next-id=278 above the highest, no merge driver, no ids deleted from base 2069b1f5cfa6.
• npm run format — no change to the prettier-ignored ledger file.
• Broader verify:cheap / verify:pr-local not warranted for this wording-only docs delta.

Residual risks

• Concurrent edits to docs/outstanding-issues.md (e.g. PR docs(issues): close #276, and record why the Lighthouse advisory is red repo-wide #1724 closing #276) can still conflict loudly — intentional for this file.
• Completeness-check implementation for #149 is still future work; this PR only corrected the row’s acceptance criteria.

Merge left to you.