docs(issues): capture the #290 recurrence playbook — window unconfirmed, reporter-stranding mechanism first

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• One merge-safe ledger inbox capture (docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/bbf8ba3d….json, P3 rec) recording what an independent second look at archived #290 established, so it survives the session. Reconcile with npm run issues:reconcile after landing.
• The archive's "resolved by drift" story is corrected: the bad SHA itself passes. In a fresh container (pinned Chromium 1234 installed per #312), the exact commit where #290 measured 2/5–3/5 failures — 9ab3b73ad — passed 30/30 executions: reproducer isolated ×5 (5 passed (10.4s), ~1.0s each), full tests/ui-smoke.spec.ts --project=chromium (98 passed (2.5m), 0 flaky), and reproducer ×10 under deliberate CPU contention (6 busy-loops on 4 cores; 10 passed (28.6s)). Current main (a76f280) also 5 passed (11.2s). So the failure was machine/environment-specific and the e8adde1b9..9ab3b73a regression window is unconfirmed. Also posted on PR docs(issues): close #290 as not-reproducible over three full ui-smoke runs, capture the browser-preflight traps (#312) #1884.
• On recurrence, the row says to test the stranding mechanism before re-bisecting: computeScrollHideUpdate re-evaluates only on scroll/resize events, and its viewportHeightChanged/range-change guards deliberately zero accumulated down-travel — geometry churn consuming a gesture's final steps strands the not-hidden state permanently, matching the recorded ~11.5s timeout signature. Fastest confirmation is a page.on("console") guard trace. The old window's content-bisect axes are preserved in the row for that day; a stop rule forbids speculative guard changes (protected phone chrome, contract-tested) without a failing trace.

Verification

• npm run verify:pr-local

- completed: check:runtime, check:installed-lock-parity, format:changed, sitemap:check,
  docs:check-index, docs:check-inventory, docs:check-scripts, docs:check-links,
  check:branch-review-ledger, check:outstanding-issues, check:ledger-write-discipline
- failed: (none)
- not reached: (none)

Ledger inbox check passed: 1 pending request(s), 0 applied.
Outstanding-issues guard passed: 310 rows (114 open, 196 archived), unique ids,
next-id=313 above the highest, no merge driver, no ids deleted from base 0709965e66e0.

Docs-only diff (one inbox JSON); no src/ change, so no UI gate is owed — the Playwright evidence quoted above is the measurement the row records, run before this diff existed.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: none to the product — a single ledger inbox capture; no id allocated until reconcile, so no collision risk with concurrent branches.
• Rollback: git revert the single commit.
• Provider or production effects: None. The only network access in the session was a Playwright browser download and the GitHub reads/comment noted above.

---

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: 18 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: 8c6134d3-575c-4529-8c6c-1465648c1539

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7fd2962 and 610f7ae.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/bbf8ba3d-cdfb-49ef-80f2-09964ac8483d.json

---

_{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: 209bfe8b23

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".