docs(issues): re-queue the Therapy sign-off tooling task after #2145 closed

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Re-queues one outstanding-issues inbox request that would otherwise have been lost. PR feat(therapy): expose Therapy in production ahead of clinical sign-off #2145 (Therapy production exposure) was closed in favour of feat(therapy): ship Therapy in production with its review state disclosed #2150, which supersedes the exposure change but does not carry this follow-up — the request file lived only on the closed branch.
• The task itself is unchanged in substance: Therapy sign-off has no tooling. reviewStatus is a bare string in src/data/therapies-source.json, so a record can be flipped to reviewed with all seven reviewChecklist booleans still false and nothing detects it. None of the 44 record fields carries reviewedBy or reviewedAt, so a completed sign-off cannot record who signed it or when — the same defect #318 flags against the medication interaction lexicon. And 205 records × 7 checks is 1,435 clinical judgements with no workflow to make them tractable.
• This matters more now, not less. While Therapy was gated, an unsigned catalogue was invisible. With feat(therapy): ship Therapy in production with its review state disclosed #2150 shipping it under a disclosure notice, sign-off is the remaining clinical work, and completing it is also what retires the notice — TherapyReviewNotice reads THERAPY_CATALOGUE_SUMMARY.needsReviewCount and returns null at zero.
• The request carries an explicit stop rule: an assistant must never tick clinicalAccuracyReviewed, sourceChecked, evidenceAppraised, safetyCautionsChecked or patientExplanationChecked, because those are qualified-clinician attestations rather than engineering work. proofread and australianEnglishChecked are non-clinical and may be completed with attribution.

State recorded at re-queue: 205 records, all reviewStatus: needs_review, all seven checklist booleans false, reviewCompleteness 57–71 with zero records complete.

Verification

• npm run verify:pr-local

failed: (none). The risk router classified this as recognised low-risk documentation scope and ran the focused contracts — 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 — and correctly skipped lint, typecheck, the unit suite and the build, none of which have a plausible failure path in a single added JSON file.

• npm run verify:ui when UI, routing, styling, browser behavior, reduced-motion, or forced-colors behavior changed

UI verification not run: not applicable — no source file is touched, so no rendered surface can change.

• npm run verify:release before release or handoff confidence claims

Verification not run: provider-backed, not authorized, and no release confidence is claimed.

• npm run eval:retrieval:quality (must stay 36/36) when retrieval, ranking, selection, chunking, or scoring behavior changed

Verification not run: not applicable — no retrieval surface is touched.

• npm run eval:rag -- --limit 15 + npm run eval:quality -- --rag-only when answer generation, the synthesis prompt, or answer post-processing changed

Verification not run: not applicable — answer generation is untouched.

• npm run check:production-readiness when clinical workflow, privacy, environment, Supabase, source governance, or deployment behavior changed

Verification not run: not applicable — this adds a queued task record and changes no behaviour.

• npm run check:deployment-readiness when deployment startup, hosting, or rollout behavior changed

Verification not run: not applicable — no deployment behaviour changed.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: None to the running product. One added, append-only inbox request file. No existing file is modified, nothing is referenced at runtime, and the canonical docs/outstanding-issues.md is untouched.
• Rollback: git revert this single commit.
• Provider or production effects: None. No OpenAI, Supabase, Railway or hosted-CI mutation was performed.

Notes

The request lands as pending and becomes a numbered ledger row only when npm run issues:reconcile next runs from its own deliberately serialized fresh-base branch. That single-writer constraint is what keeps docs/outstanding-issues.md conflict-free, so it is intentionally not done here.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01CXpFsse3vVMy7CTxNRi568

---

Generated by 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 current included review allowance is based on your included PR review attempts over the past 7 days.

Next review available in: 15 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. Your 101 included PR review attempts over the past 7 days set your current allowance at 1 review per hour.

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 within each organization.

For paid Pro and Pro+ reviews, CodeRabbit uses a developer's included PR review attempts over the past 7 days to set the current hourly allowance. At typical activity levels, the full plan allowance applies. Higher sustained activity can lower the allowance until earlier attempts leave the 7-day window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 56c177e0-68f3-4744-8a15-9c56760a4efb

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0739772 and c4ec904.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/aaca6636-f820-4ef5-881c-752440dda09d.json

---

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