fix(privacy): make the phone chrome band an opaque bar, and give it a real edge

[BigSimmo]

Summary

The follow-up recorded in #2462 and again in #2473: the privacy route's sticky header read as a white band floating on a white page. Looking at it in a browser rather than reasoning about the class list turned up a second, worse defect that no screenshot of the top of the page could show.

• The band was translucent at every width, so scrolled content ghosted through the title. Scrolling to 600px puts the amber obligation card behind the header, and its fill and "READ MORE" label read straight through "Data handling". This is the defect that mattered, and it was invisible at rest.
• The repo already had the rule. .edge-glass-header / .universal-header in globals.css set background: var(--surface); backdrop-filter: none under max-width: 639px — "Phone baseline: a full-width opaque header." This page had never followed it, carrying --surface-glass/95 plus backdrop-blur-xl at every width. It now matches: opaque on phones, the shared 72%-surface glass from sm up.
• The edge was too light to anchor the band. In the live .ckb-v2 token layer, --background, --surface, --surface-chrome and --surface-raised are all #ffffff — so no surface tone can separate this band from the page beneath it, and the border and elevation are the only signals available. Both were at their faintest: --border (#e6ebf2) over --e1 (5% alpha, 2px blur), measured in the browser rather than inferred. The edge moves to --border-strong (#d3dbe5) and the lift to --e2 — one step, still below the --e3/--e4 reserved for hover chrome and modals.

Two corrections to my own earlier reasoning, both caught by measuring

• I had assumed the page ground was the tinted --background: #f1f4f8 from globals.css, and that the band merely needed to match it. It is not. .ckb-v2 is the layer in force and its --background is pure white — which is why no amount of re-tinting the band would ever have closed the seam. I was reading the compatibility layer, not the live one.
• A first attempt moved the band to the shared 72% glass at every width. That is the right value for sm+ and made the phone case measurably worse, because 72% of white is more transparent than the 78% it replaced. The screenshot of the scrolled state is the only thing that caught it.

Verification

• npm run verify:phone-chrome — full gate green. lock-parity, runtime and the phone-chrome static/unit contracts pass; changed-browser ran the complete ui-smoke suite at 105 passed (3.5m); focused-browser 6 passed. The gate selected focused ownership scope ("Focused ownership and journey coverage is sufficient for this page-local or test-infrastructure scope") and did not escalate to full verify:ui.
• A browser-proven assertion added to tests/ui-smoke.spec.ts, as the chrome contract requires for exactly this case: tailwind-merge keeps both the base and the sm: utility, so stylesheet order rather than the class list decides the winner, and jsdom can resolve neither. It asserts a fully opaque phone background with no alpha channel, backdrop-filter: none, that the H1 is genuinely hidden behind the band once scrolled, and that sm restores blur and a different background.
• That assertion was mutation-tested by reintroducing the original bug verbatim (--surface-glass/95 + backdrop-blur-xl on phones). It failed on the alpha channel, reporting the real value oklab(0.999994 … / 0.778627), and was then restored.
• npm run check:design-system-contract — passed, every ratchet at or under baseline. Adoption 55 components / 84 roots; design-sync 55 components / 7 guidelines.
• Privacy and chrome contract units — 88 passed across privacy-ui, privacy-page.dom, privacy, ui-overlay-css-contract, header-scroll-hide-contract, mobile-composer-reserve.
• npm run test — 11770 passed | 1 skipped across 931 files. Three pre-existing failures in clinical-hazard-controls, privacy-readiness-contract and rag-plan-package-parity, reproduced identically on a clean origin/main checkout in this container (3 failed | 22 passed). I checked the privacy-named one specifically rather than assuming, since this diff touches the privacy page.
• npm run lint clean at --max-warnings 0; npm run typecheck exit 0, unscoped; npm run format committed with the work.

What is still not proven: this was verified on Chromium at 390px, 700px and 1280px. Physical Safari and an installed PWA remain unchecked, and the opaque-bar rule exists partly because of iOS toolbar behaviour — so the phone case deserves a real-device glance after it lands.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: Low, and confined to one route's header. No data, no schema, no retrieval, no auth, no layout or geometry — the diff changes a background, a backdrop-filter, a border colour token and an elevation token on a single element, plus one test. The band's height, position and contents are untouched, so nothing that depends on stickyChromeHeightPx moves.
• The change makes the phone band more opaque, so the failure direction is toward hiding content behind chrome rather than exposing it — the conservative direction for a header whose job is to stay legible over whatever scrolls under it.
• Rollback: single-commit revert.
• Provider or production effects: None. Every gate above is local and offline; no OpenAI, Supabase, Railway or hosted-CI call was made.
• RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — this diff touches no file under src/lib/rag/** and none of the protected ranking surfaces (clinical-search, retrieval-selection, released-search-order, ranking-config, answer-ranking, answer-verification), adds no comparator key, and leaves the golden fixture and eval harness untouched. Verified by listing the diff's two paths against that set.

Clinical Governance Preflight

• Source-backed claims still require linked source verification before clinical use
• No patient-identifiable document workflow was introduced or expanded without explicit governance approval
• Supabase target remains Clinical KB Database (sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy)
• Service-role keys and private document access remain server-only
• Demo/synthetic content remains clearly separated from real clinical sources
• Source metadata, review status, and outdated/unknown-source behavior remain conservative
• Deployment classification/TGA SaMD impact was checked when clinical decision-support behavior changed

Notes against those items, in full rather than as ticks alone.

This touches the privacy page, which is a governance surface, so the boundary is worth stating precisely: no privacy copy, retention statement, processing description, obligation band or disclosure changed. Not a word of what the page tells a reader about how PsychSift handles data is different. The diff changes the background, blur, border colour and elevation of the sticky header bar, and adds a test.

The one governance-relevant improvement is legibility rather than content: the amber obligation card — the band carrying "Do not enter patient-identifiable information" — previously showed through the header while scrolling, which degrades the readability of the very warning the page exists to deliver. An opaque bar removes that interference. No threshold, wording or condition behind that warning was touched.

No Supabase target, migration, credential or document-access path is involved, and nothing added here runs server-side.

Failure behaviour is unchanged and remains conservative. The band is styled entirely in CSS with no new state, no new JavaScript and no runtime data: it renders identically whether or not anything resolves. The existing chromeSticky guard — which drops sticky positioning when enlarged text makes the header taller than the viewport, so it cannot cover every accordion target — is untouched and still governs positioning.

Notes

Not fixed here, and not this PR's to fix: Cursor Bugbot has now failed to run on three consecutive PRs against a Cursor usage/spend limit, so it has reviewed none of them. That is an account setting rather than a code problem, and only the owner can lift it.

---

Generated by Claude Code

---

Note

Low Risk
Scoped to one route’s sticky header CSS and a smoke test; no logic, data, or layout geometry changes.

Overview
The privacy page sticky header band no longer uses translucent glass at every breakpoint. On phones it is now a fully opaque var(--surface) bar with no backdrop blur, aligned with the shared .edge-glass-header / .universal-header phone rule in globals.css, so scrolled content (including the amber obligation warning) does not show through “Data handling”. From sm up, the band keeps the shared 72% surface glass and backdrop-blur-xl.

The band’s visual anchor is strengthened: border token --border-strong and elevation --e2 replace the lighter border and --e1, since white-on-white surfaces cannot separate the chrome from the page alone.

A ui-smoke test asserts computed phone vs wide styles (opaque background, no blur, H1 hidden when scrolled, blur restored at sm) rather than relying on class names.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 07df3f6. Configure here.}

[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]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Team

Run ID: 0dd9add3-8caa-4d45-933a-a811cf5ff82c

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[cursor]

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_a7a9e61e-39ae-403e-a1e8-aab16e98318a)

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-01T02:05:14.943020Z	07df3f6	PR opened

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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.