docs(issues): reconcile 11 queued ledger requests into the canonical ledger

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Applies the 11 pending docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/ requests to the canonical ledger in one serialized npm run issues:reconcile transaction, moving each into docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/ as an immutable audit record. Nine come from the cross-mode home audit run alongside PR fix(therapy): restore the shared search command surface on the Therapy home #2160; two were queued by other sessions.
• This is the deliberately serialized ledger operation — it is the whole deliverable, and no product code changes. Run from a branch whose base was exactly origin/main at 0edee62a (behind 0, ahead 0).
• Resulting state: 403 rows (68 open, 335 archived), 0 pending requests, 402 applied.

Why --allow-concurrent was used

The guard refused, naming four branches. Each was checked individually first, and none carries a landable transaction — it matches on branch name, not on landed state:

branch	actual state
claude/issues-reconcile-2026-08-19	PR #2168 merged. Its docs/outstanding-issues.md content is identical to main; the only unlanded commit is a one-line review record orphaned by the squash, and AGENTS.md forbids pushing a ledger-only tip.
claude/issues-reconcile-20260818	PR #2110 closed unmerged, deliberately. PR #2120's body records the adjudication: "one of the two should land and the other be closed and redone from the post-merge base." Reopening it would revert the reconciliations that landed after it.
claude/ledger-reconcile-issues-c1trbj	~4,600 commits from its merge-base, touching no ledger files in range.
claude/rag-r0-reconcile-inbox	Same.

With the override the tool self-narrows to a warning on one branch carrying 2 already-superseded applied records, which the four-way check above accounts for. No request was adjudicated, edited or deleted by hand.

Verification

• npm run verify:pr-local — classified as recognised low-risk documentation scope:

PR-local verification summary:
- 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)

The two decisive lines:

Ledger inbox check passed: 0 pending request(s), 402 applied.
Outstanding-issues guard passed: 403 rows (68 open, 335 archived), unique display and durable ids,
  collision-free allocation enabled, deprecated next-id marker ignored, no merge driver,
  no ids deleted from base 0edee62a821c.
Ledger write discipline passed for 0edee62a821c..HEAD.

check:ledger-write-discipline compares two committed refs, so it was re-run after committing; its pass is the proof that the canonical diff equals the recorded reconciliation transaction exactly.

Lint, typecheck, the unit suite, the build and every browser gate were skipped by the selector as out of scope: the diff is the canonical ledger plus inbox audit records, with no source, config or test file touched.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: Low, and confined to documentation. No product code, schema, workflow or configuration is touched.
• Rollback: git revert the single reconcile commit; the applied records return to pending and can be reconciled again.
• Provider or production effects: None.

Notes

• Do not use GitHub's "Update branch" button on this PR. AGENTS.md calls that out specifically for PRs touching the canonical ledger: the reconciler validates its base and check:ledger-write-discipline requires the canonical diff to equal the recorded transaction exactly, so a merge commit invalidates the proof. If main moves and this conflicts, close it and redo the reconciliation from a fresh base.
• #JVYQEM (the mode-home composer reserve layout shift) describes both halves of that defect. The phone half is already fixed by PR fix(chrome): reserve the smart-search hint in the phone mode-home composer slot #2171; the sm+ half remains open, because above sm the prompt-chip row rewraps with viewport width and no single static reserve is correct at every width.
• #D8JBCV is the one worth a human read: /tools on a phone is the only mode home with no visible "Do not enter patient-identifiable information." line, because it is the sole route using the footer dock and that path suppresses the notice.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01W5HsA9TpWxAN6KbqFAx7GA

---

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: 34 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: 1a64f809-8dae-49de-b8a1-c96105cbc78b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0edee62 and 2857ce9.

📒 Files selected for processing (12)

• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/35ca1ac6-1c59-4ef5-b19e-b047796dba90.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/3fdf9173-da22-4d0c-aed6-51966f091f43.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/61d609ea-0f7c-4934-ab71-b9a972f5a7be.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/6eb8b382-a129-4470-91ec-383bc580c25f.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/72ec8611-0294-4e33-aa36-92668ed25cd6.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/b10cb24d-17fa-40ca-b8bb-90eee806ea0a.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/c09532b5-549c-47e0-a4b7-5977435d1d0f.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/c196b2fd-fde1-482b-9cac-355cc2b4ee04.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/db8e7ade-2f04-4255-b812-29900e801e47.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/ef811fd9-df86-4a1f-bd5e-cd86233d251e.json
• docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/applied/fa9f768a-9eee-4a67-96b5-ded98afbecd9.json
• docs/outstanding-issues.md

---

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