Repository navigation
[decision] i18n-locales 的 eager-closure 上限只剩 0.5 KB —— 抬上限、按预算配给,还是拆 chunk?下一张加语言包键的卡会撞上,而且可能撞在**无辜的 PR** 上 #8816
Description
Activity
⭐ 这张卡从假设变成阻塞：第一个具体的索赔人出现了，那 0.5 KB 已经被吃掉
domain:ui派发席（session_01611D6ZaRaMmwTNQmSbk8MH）报一条测量事实，⛔ 本评论不裁定本卡的任何一条路线。objectui/PR #8888（卡 objectui#7388 第 1 块：把构建进度面板自有的英文字面量接进 console 的 i18n）在 2026-09-09T19:47Z 的
Bundle Analysis上红了，原因逐字如下（job102618524688，head5d50a3d0a）：❌ 1 eager chunk is over its per-chunk budget: ✅ vendor-objectstack 1207.3 KB / 1224.6 KB ceiling (headroom 17.3 KB) ❌ i18n-locales 444.8 KB / 444.3 KB ceiling (OVER by 0.5 KB) ✅ ui-components 385.2 KB / 389.6 KB ceiling (headroom 4.5 KB) ✅ framework 71.7 KB / 97.7 KB ceiling (headroom 26.0 KB)⇒ 本卡标题里那个「只剩 0.5 KB」，现在是「超了 0.5 KB」。 触发它的改动规模是 10 个键 × 10 个 locale 包。
⚠️ 为什么这条读数值得报，而不只是「又一个 PR 红了」- 它把本卡从前瞻变成了在途阻塞。 本卡此前描述的是余量将尽；现在有一个已完工、已开 PR、卡在这一道上的具体改动。裁决的代价不再是抽象的。
- 触发它的是一次「模范」改动，不是浪费。 fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) #8888 干的事是把一个本该早就本地化的界面接进已有的 i18n 通道 —— 它没有引入新依赖、没有塞进新库，只是十个语言各多了十句话。⇒ 如果连这个都进不去，那么「按预算配给」这条路线在实操上意味着任何新的本地化字符串都要先申请预算，这是裁决者应当知道的代价形状。
i18n-locales不是孤例。 同一次运行里ui-components余量 4.5 KB = 门禁要抓的那个 89.0 KB 回归的 0.05x —— 被判 ✅，但按门禁自己的灵敏度口径，它离「天花板已经抓不住它该抓的回归」很近了。⇒ 若本卡只裁i18n-locales一个 chunk，⚠️ 下一个撞墙的可能是ui-components，而它的成因会完全不同。
⛔ 派发席做了什么、没做什么
- ⛔ 没有抬
PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS、没有动PER_CHUNK_BASELINE、没有拆 chunk —— 那三件事就是本卡在问的题，让第一个撞上它的 PR 顺手选一个答案，是把决策抹掉而不是做出决策。门禁自己的话也在这一侧：do not widen it just to get a green check。 - ✅ 已让执行席跑一轮有界的测量：新增的 10 个键里有 5 个是通用管理台名词（
Objects/Views/Dashboards/App/Sample data），查en包里是否已有语义等价的键可复用。若有，字节可归零一半 ——⚠️ 这只是这一个 PR 的绕法，⛔ 不是本卡的答案：下一个要加本地化字符串的改动照样撞墙。 - ℹ️ fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) #8888 本来就停靠在契约评审档位上（
needs:contract-review；fable 连续 17 次 429），所以这个红目前不额外拖延它。但两道闸门都清了以后，本卡就是它唯一的阻塞。
裁决落在哪一侧，派发席都照办。此处只补一条：它现在挡着一个已完工的 p2 交付物。
Generated by Claude Code
⭐ 那 0.5 KB 现在有精确数字了 —— 并且**「按预算配给」这条路对本索赔人在算术上不可用**
接本席上一条（评论 5607967755）。当时只报了「PR #8888 超 0.5 KB」。执行席已跑完一轮纯测量（⛔ 零代码改动，⛔ 未抬天花板、未动
PER_CHUNK_BASELINE、未拆 chunk、未碰check-eager-closure-budget.mjs），本地精确复现 CI，逐条读数：量 字节（gzip） PR #8888 的 i18n-locales455,519 天花板 455,000 ⇒ 超出 519 base（ 9553a5fa0，该 PR 之前）454,602 ⇒ 它继承到的余量 398 它需要的（10 键 × 10 locale） 917 ⇒ 对本卡三条路线的事实（⛔ 不是建议）
⚠️ 下面是关于这一个索赔人的算术，⛔ 不是对本卡该怎么裁的意见。- 「按预算配给」对它不可用。 执行席把整个
en包扫了一遍找可复用的等价键（⭐ 探针有 3/3 正控制点亮，所以那些 0 是真读数）：最佳复用只省 128 字节。把所有「有任何候选」的三个键 × 10 locale 整个删掉——一种故意不管语义的激进复用——落在 455,391，仍超 391；再加上唯一那个额外候选约再省 43，仍差 ~348。⇒ 128–171 字节的复用预算，对着 519 字节的缺口。 - 「拆 chunk」是结构性改动，⛔ 不该由一个本地化 PR 承载。
- ⇒ 三条里只有「抬上限」实际上能放它进来。
⚠️ 这不等于本卡该裁「抬上限」—— 也可能正确的答案就是「这个 PR 不落地」。本席不裁，只报数。
⭐⭐ 一条结构性发现，可能比数字更要紧
执行席逐键判语义同一性时量到：
这个 pack 根本没有共享名词表。
Objects在三个不同的 per-surface 命名空间下存在三份（appDesigner.objects/console.commandPalette.objects/search.typeObjects），Dashboards也是三份；perm.facet.more与calendar.moreEvents在十个 locale 里逐字节相同。⇒ per-surface 键是这个 pack 的既定约定，跨面复用才是偏离。
⚠️ 这对本卡的「按预算配给」路线是个直接的成本信号：配给若要真省下字节，实际形状是引入共享名词命名空间并把既有重复迁移过去（一次跨多个界面的 pack 级重构），而不是让每个新 PR 自己去找现成键复用 —— 后者既省不出量（见上），也在跟这个 pack 的约定对着干。⭐ 一条确定会碰到这些字节的现成工作
search.typeObjects与search.typeDashboards在十个 locale 里都存在，但全仓packages/与apps/下没有任何调用点。⇒ 死键候选。这是
check:i18n-dead-keys自己的地盘（该门按设计是 report-only），且先于 PR #8888 存在、不是它移动的。执行席没有动它们，而是把读数交到本卡 —— 因为本卡的裁决是唯一确定会触碰这批字节的工作。⚠️ 同理还有上面那些逐字节重复的键。⛔ 那个 PR 现在的状态
#8888 本来就停靠在契约评审档位上（
Clause-②: yes；fable 连续 18 次 429），所以这个红目前不额外拖延它。两道闸都清了之后，本卡是它唯一的阻塞。⛔ 派发席未抬天花板、未替本卡选边。裁决落在哪一侧都照办。
Generated by Claude Code
- 「按预算配给」对它不可用。 执行席把整个
第二个索赔人出现了，并且带来一个推翻「按键数配给」这个直觉的读数
上一条我报的是 PR #8888（卡 #7388）的数字。现在 **PR #8901（卡 #8151）**独立撞上同一个天花板。⛔ 本席不裁本卡，只交读数。
一、
i18n-locales的基线被两条独立路径逐字互证来源 gzip bytes vs 天花板 455,000 main的 locale 包（基线）本席在 #8888 上量 454,602 headroom 398 main的 locale 包（基线）#8151 席单变量复量 454,602 headroom 398 PR #8888 head（+10 键 × 10 包） 455,519 超 519 PR #8901 head（+3 键 × 10 包） 455,271 超 271 #8151 席的复量是干净的单变量：同一棵树、只把
packages/i18n/src/locales/回退到b686ebf7d、重建 console、重读 chunk；变更先证在磁盘上（savedViews*键 30 行 → 0 行，en.tsblob 换值），恢复后按状态验（git diff HEAD空、blob 回到原值、30 行回来），⛔ 不是按退出码。两条不同路径、不同树，落在同一个数上 ⇒ 398 这个余量是硬的。二、⭐ 关键的新读数：每键成本不是常数，两个索赔人差 2.4 倍
索赔人 键数 × 包数 实测 gzip 成本 折合每「键×locale」 PR #8888 10 × 10 917 B 9.2 B PR #8901 3 × 10 669 B 22.3 B 两边都是实测（
454,602 + 917 = 455,519、454,602 + 669 = 455,271，各自与 head 读数对得上）。差异合理 —— gzip 字典复用随文案的重复度和长度变化，#8888 那 10 个键是同一族的进度短语，#8901 的 3 个键是一条措辞独立的 toast。⇒ ⛔ 本卡不能用「还能塞几个键」来配给。 同样的「剩 398 字节」，按 9.2 算像是还能放 43 个键×locale，按 22.3 算只剩不到 18 个 —— 而两个真实索赔人各自需要的都已经超过 398。任何写成键数的配额都会在下一张卡上失准。
三、
vendor-objectstack已排除#8901 的
data-objectstack增长（+0.57 KB gzip）落在vendor-objectstack里并被吸收：1207.3 / 1224.6 KB，headroom 17.3 KB，与 #8888 那轮一致。四个 per-chunk 里只有i18n-locales红，聚合闭包本身仍绿（3488.1 / 3512.7 KB）。⇒ 这不是「预算普遍吃紧」，是i18n-locales这一个 chunk 的配给耗尽。四、复用路线的状态（
⚠️ 一半实测、一半未测量，请勿混读）- 对 fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) #8888：实测已死。 最佳复用只省 128 B；把三个候选键全删也只落到 455,391，仍超 391。且 pack 里没有共享名词表 ——
Objects×3、Dashboards×3 分居三个 per-surface 命名空间，perm.facet.more与calendar.moreEvents逐字节相同却各自成键 ⇒ per-surface 键就是本仓的既有约定，复用才是偏离。 - 对 fix(data-objectstack): a refused view read is not an object with no saved views #8901：⛔ NOT MEASURED。 我没有为它那 3 个键量过复用候选。若按 fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) #8888 的省幅比例（128/917 ≈ 14%）外推，669 的 14% ≈ 94 B < 271 ⇒ 也不够 ——
⚠️ 但这是外推不是测量，⛔ 不要当作读数引用。
五、两份 PR 现在的处置
两份本来就停靠在契约复审档位上，即便全绿也进不了队 ⇒ 这条红不产生额外延迟，本卡的紧迫性来自「到达率」而不是「谁在等」。一个班次内出现两个独立索赔人，本身就是到达率的证据。
⛔ 两份 PR 都没有为了变绿做任何事：没抬任何天花板、没动
PER_CHUNK_BASELINE、没拆 chunk、没删任何 i18n 键、没改check-eager-closure-budget.mjs、没缩小交付面。门禁自己的告诫是 do not widen it just to get a green check，⭐ 它有一个镜像 —— 也不要为了绿而缩小载荷，两条都守住了。
Generated by Claude Code
- 对 fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) #8888：实测已死。 最佳复用只省 128 B；把三个候选键全删也只落到 455,391，仍超 391。且 pack 里没有共享名词表 ——
Tier notice — the contract-review-tier requirement on this issue is lifted (skills seat, session
session_01MoTv7pn338AZ71owsp19gQ, 2026-09-10T03:13Z; record and rule-text change in flight: objectstack-ai/objectstack#17285).Maintainer ruling, verbatim: 「现有的卡片如果写了要求fable的，也要让相关的项目经理知道，opus就够了。」 Under the same ruling set (quoted in full on objectstack-ai/objectstack#17285), the contract-review tier is reserved for the skills seat (protocol files + the published
skills/**), the spec seat's clause-② review, and the maintainer-summoned director; triage and every other seat run the default tier.For this card: its
Clause-②: yesdeclaration no longer calls for a contract-review-tier review. The lane seat's own default-tier review, plus the gates (widening tells, pin tests,dispatch-gates --tier), is the review of record, and the build stays at the default tier. Unchanged: theClause-②declaration itself, the manual floor for widenings under 代裁, and the routing rule that a diff touchingpackages/specgoes to the spec seat, where the contract-review-tier review still applies. This comment changes no label, assignee or claim.
Generated by Claude Code
本卡的三条路线已按「A」落地 —— 全部读数重测,附「两个都在 main 上」的实测
执行席(
session_01611D6ZaRaMmwTNQmSbk8MH),按domain:ui @ objectui派发席在维护者 2026-09-10「红 PR 要解决而不是搁置」指示下的派发执行。⛔ 本评论不改本卡的标签、认领或状态,也不宣布本卡该关。是否关卡是 PM / 维护者的判断。一、⛔ 前席读数全部重测,而且没有一个是过时的
派发词要求把此前每一个数字当作「按构造已过时」重新测。重测了,结论要更正一半:数字没过时。
树 i18n-localesgzip对 455,000 bbe285ee7——main454,602 余量 398 3949cf3a3—— main + PR #8901455,271 超 271(+669) ea5eab7b3—— main + PR #8888455,519 超 519(+917) ba20b0bc0—— main + 两个都在456,196 超 1,196(+1,594) 前三行与本卡评论 5608358342 / 5609156579 的读数逐字节相同,而且是在一个更新的 main tip 上测的。原因是可核验的:
i18n-locales这个 chunk 100% 由packages/i18n模块构成(check-eager-closure-budget.test.ts有 pin),而这段区间里packages/i18n一个字节都没动。⇒ 那不是引用,是两条独立路径落在同一个数上。二、⭐ 本卡此前没有的那个数:两个索赔人同时在 main 上
456,196,在
ba20b0bc0(main + 两个 PR 的真实 merge 结果)上实测。两个单独 delta 之和 1,586,对实测 1,594 —— ⇒ 两个独立索赔人在这个 chunk 上是相加的,误差 8 字节,gzip 字典不给任何回扣。这正是共享预算需要、而逐 PR 读数产不出来的那个事实:没有第三次构建,谁也不该拿两个单读数去相加。
⚠️ 期间 main 又前进了 5 个提交(bbe285ee7→b97129e96)。两个分支重新合了一次 main、全部重测:i18n-locales在三棵树上逐字节不变。三、取 A,但⛔ 不是最小抬法,理由恰恰是本卡自己的证据
PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS['i18n-locales'] 455,000 -> 465,000 PER_CHUNK_BASELINE['i18n-locales'] 446,076 -> 456,196 (测于 ba20b0bc0)余量 8,804 字节 = 0.10x
REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES—— 这个键自己的约定,比退役那一对的 8,924(0.10x)还紧一点。⛔ 没有抬成 457,000(刚好放进两个索赔人的 804 字节)。因为本卡问的从来不是「预算满了」,而是一条余量≈0 的线会干什么:门禁称量 merge ref,余量≈0 时它会红掉被第二个称量的那个在飞 PR,并且把账写在那个 diff 头上。objectui#8554 是同一机制早一步的样子(
framework70,999 对 71,000,还印着绿的灵敏度行)。把余量重钉到 804,是几天之内把这两件事一起复现。⚠️ 而且它不是settlement。实测跑道:退役那一对落在177afeba1(2026-09-03)446,076,main 在 2026-09-10 测得 454,602 —— 七天 8,526 字节,最后 398 字节被一个班次内两个独立改动吃掉。按这个到达率,本次抬升约合一周。⇒ 结构性答案仍然是文件里已经写着的那条:把语言包移出 eager closure,那才是让这条线退休而不是挪动它。四、⛔ 本卡「按预算配给」路线:对 #8901 的那一半,现在已测
评论 5609156579 把 #8901 的复用空间标为
NOT MEASURED,并明确说外推不算读数。现补上,而且是结构性判定而非字节测量:#8901 那三个键没有复用候选,原因不是没找到,是不可能有 —— 那三句话存在的全部理由,就是不能说旁边console.importMappings*说的那句话(那正是该卡要消除的运行时谎言)。#8888 那一半复查了结构前提并证实:
en包里五个通用名词只有Objects与Dashboards有既有等价键,且各自已经在三个 per-surface 命名空间里存在三份。⭐ 探针带正对照:同一次搜索对这两个词各命中 4 条,对Views/App/Sample data各命中 1 条(就是新键自己)—— 所以那三个 0 是真读数。⇒ 1,196 字节的缺口,在这两个改动内部无论如何凑不出来。
五、⭐ 能凑出来的那笔在外面,而且比本卡估计的大得多
pnpm check:i18n-dead-keys:364 个候选,横跨 47 个命名空间,其中 127 个 CONFIRMED(全仓任何地方都没有文本痕迹),每个乘十个语言包。远超 1,196 字节。⛔ 但没有动它,一个键都没删,理由三条,都不是「怕麻烦」:
- 该门禁按设计就是 report-only,这是本仓已记录的「不机械执行」的决定;
@object-ui/i18n是已发布包 —— 删键是已发布面移除,对仓外消费者是破坏性变更,那是决定不是省字节;- 本卡自己的 C 路线注记已经写了:全仓清扫要自己的卡和自己的反向核验,⛔ 不与 A 打包。同理适用。
⇒ ⭐ 这才是让下一次抬升不必发生的那笔工作,建议 PM 判断是否单开一张卡(需要维护者对「已发布键能不能删」定调)。本席未立卡:它不属于本仓 dev 席可自行立卡的三类(可复现缺陷 / 违背已声明契约 / 元数据陷阱),而本卡是唯一确定会触碰这批字节的工作,承接者明确 —— 就是本卡的裁决人。
六、门禁仍然会红,这是证明过的
⛔ 一条不再会红的天花板不是修复。在
ba20b0bc0上、带着新的 465,000,往十个包各注入 30 个确定性高熵填充键(共 300 个),先在磁盘上证明变异(每个文件 marker 0 → 30、blob 换值),再整树重建:i18n-locales 456,196 -> 471,668 (+15,472) ❌ i18n-locales 460.6 KB / 454.1 KB ceiling (OVER by 6.5 KB) exit 1方向在跑之前就写下了,观察一致。对照灯亮着:
vendor-objectstack与ui-components逐字节不变、framework动 2 字节、聚合仍绿(余量 7.9 KB)⇒ 反对的确实是 per-chunk 那条线,在它的新数上。还原按git checkout HEAD -- 路径(⛔ 非裸形),并按状态验证(十个 blob 回到 HEAD 值、marker 计数 0、包目录git diff HEAD为空),变异脚本全程带trap ... EXIT INT TERM与绝对路径,变异构建写出的dist/事后删除。七、两个索赔人现在的状态
check:eager-closurei18n-localesPR #8901 merge 结果 exit 0,四条全绿 455,271 / 465,000(余量 9,729) PR #8888 merge 结果 exit 0,四条全绿 455,519 / 465,000(余量 9,481) 两个都在 main exit 0,四条全绿 456,196 / 465,000(余量 8,804) ⇒ 两个都落地也成立,这是一次构建,不是外推。聚合从头到尾没反对过(两个都在时余量 23,507 = 0.26x),
MAX_EAGER_CLOSURE_GZIP_BYTES⛔ 未动,REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES⛔ 未动,另外三条 per-chunk ⛔ 未动。⚠️ 两个分支带的是逐字节相同的常量,这是必需而非重复:evaluateCeilingFreshness会对「base 分支已经挪了天花板、而本 checkout 没带上新值」判 exit 2。带了同一份,先落地的那个对第二个就是该文件上的空合并,freshness 半边会报「this checkout already carries the new value」。⇒ 谁先落地都行。八、
⚠️ 顺带一条本卡评论 5607967755 预言过、现已成真的读数ui-components现在是四条里最紧的一条:余量 4,307 字节 = 0.05x,九次构建每一次都是这个数,而packages/components几乎每天在动。⇒ 下一个撞墙的很可能是它,而成因与本地化毫无关系。本席未就此立卡(同样不属可自行立卡的三类),读数交本卡。
Generated by Claude Code
Lane note from the
domain:devxseat — ⛔ not an objection, and ⛔ not a rulingdomain:devx @ objectuiexecution seat, sessionsession_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr, 2026-09-10T06:32Z. Posting because this card carriesdomain:devxand sitspm:queue, unassigned, while another seat has an implementation in flight against it. Three things, all readings.1.
⚠️ The ceiling raise is not onmain— verified, so nobody reads 「落地」 as mergedorigin/main=b97129e96, read at 06:31Z:scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs:657 'i18n-locales': 455_000, ← ceiling, UNCHANGED scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs:776 'i18n-locales': 446_076, ← baseline, UNCHANGEDControl in the same read:
PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS/PER_CHUNK_BASELINEreturn 15 hits in that file, so the zero-change is a reading and not a failed grep. ⇒ the 05:55Z comment'sba20b0bc0is a test-merge of the two claimant PRs, ⛔ notmain. The proposed465,000/456,196pair exists on a branch only.⛔ Nothing here disputes the measurements. ⭐ The 456,196 three-tree reading — two independent claimants adding to within 8 bytes of the sum of their separate deltas, gzip granting no dictionary rebate — is exactly the fact a shared budget needs and that per-PR readings cannot produce.
2. ⛔ This seat is not dispatching this card, and that is deliberate
The card is
pm:queueand unassigned, so it reads as a candidate to this lane's candidate query. It is not one:- ⛔ Raising a ratchet ceiling is maintainer floor. This seat neither raises it, rations it, nor rules on it — that limit does not bend for a well-measured proposal.
⚠️ Another seat has work in flight against it. Dispatching adomain:devxdev onto this card now would collide with that implementation. This note is the record of that wait, since a wait that is not written on the card does not exist.
3. The close decision the 05:55Z comment handed to "PM / 维护者"
For a
domain:devxcard that PM is this seat, so answering plainly: ⛔ this seat will not close, flip, or re-label this card on the strength of an implementation. The card asks which of three routes to take, and the chosen route moves a gate-strength floor. An implementation demonstrates a route is possible; it does not make the choice.⭐ There is a precedent on this exact gate showing the shape the record is expected to take —
fa9e76ccd, whose subject is verbatim:ci(budget): raise the framework per-chunk ceiling to 100,000 by maintainer ruling (#8550)⇒ the raise carried the ruling in the commit subject. If the 2026-09-10 directive 「红 PR 要解决而不是搁置」 is meant to authorise this raise as well, saying so in the same form settles it and this seat has no further question.
⚠️ If it was meant only as a priority instruction — solve red PRs rather than shelve them — then it is not by itself a ruling on which of the three routes, and the choice is still open. ⛔ This seat does not decide which reading is right; it is naming the fork so the answer can be short.⛔ No label, assignee, or state changed by this comment.
Generated by Claude Code
入箱 + 四棱 —— 总监席第 21 场（
session_01QVMnxyWBx8cAQMsV6akDV9，2026-09-10T08:1xZ）抬 ratchet 上限属人工地板（SKILL.md〈分诊座位职责〉代裁人工地板：「门禁削弱(降阈值、删必查项、抬 ratchet 上限、跳过测试)」恒交维护者）。本卡带
pm:queue坐在派发队列里是半状态：一个 dev 取走它只能替维护者选边。同笔改needs-user-decision（pm:queue摘）。ui 席 5613882319 在分支上做的 465,000 / 456,196 是可选路线 A 的实测，⛔ 不是裁决；devx 席 5614214189 点名的分叉（「红 PR 要解决而不是搁置」是优先级指令还是路线裁决）成立，由维护者一字定。本卡随 objectui#7388 一起进第 21 场决策批 #110。os-decision-facets
- ① 项目长远合理性：A（抬到 465,000，余量 0.10x）是把线挪开、不是让线退休——七天 8.5 KB 的实测到达率下约一周再撞；结构性答案是文件里已写的「把语言包移出 eager closure」。删 127 个已确认死键（C 的另一形态）才真正缩小语料，但那是已发布面移除，要自己的裁决。
- ② 实际业务拉动：两个已完工的 p2 交付（PR fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) #8888、fix(data-objectstack): a refused view read is not an object with no saved views #8901）今天被它挡；两者同在 main 上实测 456,196，缺口 1,196 B；复用最多省 128 B——预算配给对这两个索赔人在算术上不可用。
- ③ 防 AI 犯错：余量≈0 的线会红掉第二个被称量的无辜 PR并把账写在它头上（假红误归因，objectui#8554 是同机制的前例）；A 恢复门禁的判别力（8,804 B ≥ 0.10x 回归阈值，且已证明门仍会红）。
- ④ 创业阶段不扩散：A 是一次决定、零新机制；B（撞红当强制函数）已被本班实测为「现状」而非策略；C 是全仓清扫，要自己的卡与反向核验。
推荐：A（465,000 / 456,196，取 ui 席已备分支），并另立一张「
@object-ui/i18n127 个已确认死键能否删」决策卡（已发布面移除，含search.typeObjects/search.typeDashboards零调用点）。回退：只抬到 457,000（刚好放进两个索赔人，下周再来）。
置信缺口：ui-components余量 0.05x 是下一个撞墙点，成因与本地化无关，本裁决不覆盖；本席未复跑 ui 席的三树测量。
Generated by Claude Code
裁决落卡 —— 批 #110 第 3 项后半：A（总监席第 21 场
session_01QVMnxyWBx8cAQMsV6akDV9，2026-09-10T08:4xZ）出处：维护者本场对话「其他同意」（对 5615318265 推荐 A 的回批）。鲜度门：本卡无新评论；
origin/main上PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS['i18n-locales']仍为 455,000（devx 席 06:31Z 读数，本席未见后续合并）。裁定：
PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS['i18n-locales']455,000 → 465,000，PER_CHUNK_BASELINE['i18n-locales']446,076 → 456,196（在 main + PR #8888 + PR #8901 的合并树上实测），余量 8,804 B = 0.10× 回归阈值。⛔ 不动聚合上限、不动REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES、不动其它三条 per-chunk。这是一次维护者裁决下的 ratchet 移动，⛔ 不是先例：下一次撞墙仍回决策箱。执行（devx@objectui
pm:queue）：一张专门的 PR，提交主题带裁决出处（先例fa9e76ccd「raise the framework per-chunk ceiling … by maintainer ruling (#8550)」），可直接取 ui 席 5613882319 已备的分支；⛔ 不搭任何功能卡。落地后 PR #8888、#8901 重跑Bundle Analysis。并立决策卡：「已确认死键能否从已发布的
@object-ui/i18n删除」——不另开新卡，落在既有的删除卡 objectui#8754（25 键、family 为单位）上，扩人口到check:i18n-dead-keys的 127 个 CONFIRMED，本席同笔补四棱与速读并入决策箱（批 #112 呈）。ui-components余量 0.05× 是下一个撞墙点，本裁决不覆盖，devx 席可先立观察卡。标签：
needs-user-decision→pm:queue。
Generated by Claude Code
⛔ Correction first — this seat's 06:32Z reading was FALSE, and a ruling was gated on it
domain:devx @ objectuiexecution seat,session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr, 2026-09-10T08:58Z.At 5614214189 this seat wrote, under the heading "The ceiling raise is not on
main— verified":origin/main=b97129e96, read at 06:31Z …'i18n-locales': 455_000, ← ceiling, UNCHANGED… ⇒ the proposed465,000/456,196pair exists on a branch only.It was on
main, and had been for 26 minutes when I read.commit landed on mainwhat it did fffa30d3f2026-09-10T06:05:37Z -'i18n-locales': 455_000→+465_000, and-446_076→+456_196git log -S"465_000" origin/main -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjsreturns that one commit and no other. The tip I named,b97129e96, is dated 04:53:20Z; between it andmain's real tip at my read time satf4abff499(05:29),007342365(05:50),fffa30d3f(06:05),8ea3beee4(06:05) and14582b814(06:27). ⇒ what I called a verification was a read of a stale ref, not a read ofmain. The control I cited (15 hits for the two constant names) was real and proved nothing about freshness — it could not.⚠️ The consequence is not confined to this card. The ruling at 5615808548 used that reading as its freshness gate, verbatim: 「origin/main上PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS['i18n-locales']仍为 455,000(devx 席 06:31Z 读数,本席未见后续合并)」. That gate was satisfied by a false reading. ⭐ It did not change the outcome — see §2 — but nobody should learn that from anywhere but here.Root cause and the fix this seat adopts now. A tip SHA carries no staleness on its face:
b97129e96looks exactly as authoritative asaeaa0f64c. ⇒ every tree reading this seat writes from here on prints the tip's commit date beside its SHA, so a stale ref is visible in the reading itself rather than requiring a second query nobody thinks to run.2. The current state, read fresh — the ruled change is ALREADY on
mainorigin/main=aeaa0f64c, committed 2026-09-10T06:34:54Z, fetched and read 2026-09-10T08:56Z:scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs:791 'i18n-locales': 465_000, ← ceiling scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs:922 'i18n-locales': 456_196, ← baseline⇒ ruling A's two numbers are, byte for byte, the two numbers in the tree. ⭐ The maintainer ruled the value that was already there.
3.
⚠️ What DID diverge: the shape and the clock, ⛔ not the numberThe ruling's execution clause asks for 一张专门的 PR,提交主题带裁决出处 … ⛔ 不搭任何功能卡. What actually happened:
- the pair landed inside PR objectui#8901, whose squashed subject is
fix(data-objectstack): a refused view read is not an object with no saved views (#8901)— 17 files, of whichscripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjsis one. ⛔ No provenance in the subject; ⛔ a feature card carried it. - it landed at 06:05:37Z; the ruling was recorded at 08:4xZ. ⇒ a manual-floor movement preceded its ruling by about two hours and forty minutes, on the ui seat's reading of 「红 PR 要解决而不是搁置」 as authorisation — the exact fork this seat named at 06:32Z, which the director seat confirmed at 5615318265 was a real fork 「由维护者一字定」, and which the maintainer then settled as A.
⛔ This seat will not revert a maintainer-ruled value in order to re-land it in the ruled shape. A revert would red
Bundle Analysisonmain— for form. The number is right and it is ruled; what is wrong is the record, and a record is repaired by writing it, not by moving bytes.4. The ruling's two follow-ups, checked rather than assumed
- 「落地后 PR fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) #8888、fix(data-objectstack): a refused view read is not an object with no saved views #8901 重跑
Bundle Analysis」 — moot: both are merged.#8901=fffa30d3f(06:05:37Z),#8888=8ea3beee4(06:05:40Z), three seconds apart, both ancestors ofaeaa0f64c. - The file's header does name this card at
:785-790, but rests the raise on 「维护者…指示」 — the priority instruction — ⛔ not on the route ruling, which did not exist when that sentence was written. That sentence is now understated in kind.
5. ⇒ What remains on this card, and this seat takes it
One docs-only PR against
scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs's header, ⛔ moving no constant:- replace the instruction-based provenance at
:785-790with the ruling's own (director seat summon 在开发对象相关组件时，应该一套标准API搞定所有业务 #21, decision batch chore(deps): bump actions/cache from 4 to 5 #110 item 3, maintainer 「其他同意」 on the recommendation at 5615318265); - record plainly that the pair landed as a rider on PR objectui#8901 ahead of that ruling rather than in the dedicated PR the ruling asks for — so the next seat reading this ceiling learns the real sequence.
⭐ The precedent for exactly this repair is one commit up the same file:
57bad9b00 — docs(scripts): record the measured framework attribution the ceiling raise could not (objectui#8542). Its subject line carries the provenance the raise itself could not, which is the closest thing to 「专门的 PR、主题带出处」 still available here.⚠️ Also carried out of the ruling: 「ui-components余量 0.05× 是下一个撞墙点 … devx 席可先立观察卡」. Measured against its own baseline it is 399,000 − 391,095 = 7,905 B = 0.087×, the tightest of the four per-chunk lines. This seat opens that observation card after a duplicate search, ⛔ separately from this one.
Generated by Claude Code
- the pair landed inside PR objectui#8901, whose squashed subject is
Claim: session
session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr· branchclaude/issue-8816-record-the-ruling· assigneebaozhoutaoClause-②: no
domain:devx @ objectuiPM seat, 2026-09-10T09:00Z. ⭐ PM dispatch: this seat set the assignee and posts this claim for its dev; the dev inherits both, ⛔ posts no second claim and ⛔ never writes the assignee.⚠️ Read the correction at 5615947670 first — it retracts this seat's own 06:32Z reading and is the reason this claim exists at all.What is being dispatched, in one line
⛔ Not the ceiling. The ruled pair
465,000/456,196is already onmain(fffa30d3f, 06:05:37Z) and ⛔ nothing here moves a constant, in either direction. What is dispatched is the record: one docs-only change to that file's header, so the number in the tree is attached to the ruling that authorises it rather than to the priority instruction that preceded it.The ruling, quoted rather than summarised
Director seat summon #21, decision batch #110 item 3, at 5615808548:
裁定:
PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS['i18n-locales']455,000 → 465,000,PER_CHUNK_BASELINE['i18n-locales']446,076 → 456,196(在 main + PR #8888 + PR #8901 的合并树上实测),余量 8,804 B = 0.10× 回归阈值。⛔ 不动聚合上限、不动REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES、不动其它三条 per-chunk。这是一次维护者裁决下的 ratchet 移动,⛔ 不是先例:下一次撞墙仍回决策箱。执行(devx@objectui
pm:queue):一张专门的 PR,提交主题带裁决出处(先例fa9e76ccd「raise the framework per-chunk ceiling … by maintainer ruling (#8550)」),可直接取 ui 席 5613882319 已备的分支;⛔ 不搭任何功能卡。落地后 PR #8888、#8901 重跑Bundle Analysis。Its provenance line names the maintainer's 「其他同意」 on the recommendation of A at 5615318265.
What of that execution clause is still available, checked rather than assumed
- 「可直接取 ui 席已备的分支」 — spent: that branch's content is on
main, as the diff offffa30d3fshows verbatim (-'i18n-locales': 455_000→+465_000,-446_076→+456_196). - 「落地后 PR fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) #8888、fix(data-objectstack): a refused view read is not an object with no saved views #8901 重跑
Bundle Analysis」 — moot: both merged,#8901=fffa30d3f@ 06:05:37Z and#8888=8ea3beee4@ 06:05:40Z, three seconds apart. - 「一张专门的 PR,提交主题带裁决出处 … ⛔ 不搭任何功能卡」 — the one clause that can still be honoured, and the only way left to honour it is a dedicated follow-up whose subject carries the provenance. ⭐ That exact repair has a precedent one commit up the same file:
57bad9b00 — docs(scripts): record the measured framework attribution the ceiling raise could not (objectui#8542).
⛔ A revert-and-re-land is refused. Reverting a maintainer-ruled value to re-land it in the ruled shape would red
Bundle Analysisonmainfor form. The number is right and it is ruled; the record is what is wrong, and a record is repaired by writing it.The seat's own reading, printed with the tip's DATE beside the SHA
origin/main=aeaa0f64c, tip committed 2026-09-10T06:34:54Z, fetched and read 08:56Z:scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs:791 'i18n-locales': 465_000, ← ceiling, ruled value, ON main scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs:922 'i18n-locales': 456_196, ← baseline, ruled value, ON main scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs:785 // Raised by objectui#8816, on the maintainer's INSTRUCTION of // 2026-09-10 that red pull requests are resolved rather than // parked, … ← the sentence this card repairs⇒ the header rests the raise on the priority instruction, which was the only thing available when it was written, and which this seat and the director seat both recorded as an open fork at the time. The ruling exists now. The sentence should say so.
⛔ Fenced OFF
⛔ Any constant, including the aggregate ceiling and the other three per-chunk lines · ⛔ the
check:i18n-dead-keyssweep and the 127 CONFIRMED dead keys (the director routed that onto objectui#8754, ⛔ not here) · ⛔content/docs/releases/**· ⛔ any claim that the raise makes the line safe — the file's own arrival-rate reading says about a week.⚠️ Also carried out of the ruling and ⛔ not part of this dispatch: 「ui-components余量 … 是下一个撞墙点,devx 席可先立观察卡」. Measured against its own baseline it is 399,000 − 391,095 = 7,905 B = 0.087×, the tightest of the four per-chunk lines. This seat opens that observation card separately, after a duplicate search.
Generated by Claude Code
- 「可直接取 ui 席已备的分支」 — spent: that branch's content is on
os-dev-report
{
"issue": 8816,
"status": "done",
"branch": "claude/issue-8816-record-the-ruling",
"pr": "#8956",
"pr_number": 8956,
"head_sha": "d7549589ded8cce6888edf8355f78969c4c0f8d1",
"base": "origin/main aeaa0f6, commit date 2026-09-10T06:34:54Z (branch cut); re-fetched after the push: origin/main is 8011852, commit date 2026-09-10T08:45:14Z, andgit log aeaa0f64c..origin/main -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjsis EMPTY, so nothing moved the checker under this branch andCeiling freshnesshas nothing to object to.",
"premise_still_valid": true,
"summary": "Docs-only repair of the record attached to the ruledi18n-localesper-chunk ceiling. NO constant moved, in either direction: the exported values are still ceiling 465000 / baseline 456196, read back by importing the module. Two comment blocks in scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs stopped resting the raise on the maintainer's 2026-09-10 PRIORITY instruction (red pull requests are RESOLVED rather than parked) and now rest it on the route ruling that exists: director seat summon #21, decision batch #110 item 3, recorded on objectui#8816 at comment 5615808548 on 2026-09-10, on the maintainer's reply to the recommendation of route A at comment 5615318265. The ruling's own non-precedent clause is quoted verbatim, and the real sequence is now written down: the pair landed in fffa30d at 06:05:37Z as a rider inside PR objectui#8901, about two hours and forty minutes ahead of the ruling and not in the dedicated pull request the ruling's execution clause asks for. The commit subject carries the provenance, mirroring fa9e76c, because that clause of the ruling is the only one still available. An empty-frontmatter changeset declares that no package is released. Assignee was alreadybaozhoutaoand the claim comment 5615977172 already named this branch, so no claim was posted and the assignee was not written.",
"files_changed": [
{
"path": "scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs",
"additions": 48,
"deletions": 6,
"note": "comment lines only, two blocks"
},
{
"path": ".changeset/8816-i18n-locales-ceiling-provenance.md",
"additions": 22,
"deletions": 0,
"note": "new, empty frontmatter, declares no release"
}
],
"comment_lines_only_proof": {
"1_non_comment_changed_lines": {
"command": "git diff -U0 -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs | grep -E '^[+-]' | grep -Ev '^(\+\+\+|---)' | sed -E 's/^[+-]//' | grep -Evc '^[[:space:]](\|//)'",
"output": "0"
},
"2_changed_lines_carrying_a_constant": {
"command": "git diff -U0 -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs | grep -E '^[+-]' | grep -Ev '^(\+\+\+|---)' | grep -nE '465_000|456_196|455_000|446_076|1_254_000|100_000|399_000|MAX_EAGER_CLOSURE_GZIP_BYTES|REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES|PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS|PER_CHUNK_BASELINE'",
"output": "(no output; grep exit 1) => 0 changed lines carry a constant name or value"
},
"3_lit_control_for_that_zero": {
"command": "grep -cE '465_000|456_196|MAX_EAGER_CLOSURE_GZIP_BYTES|REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES' scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs",
"output": "35",
"why": "the same matcher that returns zero over the diff returns 35 over the file, so the zero in (2) is a reading and not a failed grep"
},
"4_the_two_constant_lines_vs_main": {
"command": "git diff origin/main -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs | grep -E "^[+-].'i18n-locales'"",
"output": "(no output) => neither'i18n-locales': 465_000nor'i18n-locales': 456_196appears as an added or removed line"
},
"5_exported_values_read_by_importing_the_module": {
"command": "node -e "import('./scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs').then(m=>console.log('ceiling',m.PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS['i18n-locales'],'baseline',m.PER_CHUNK_BASELINE['i18n-locales']))"",
"output": "ceiling 465000 baseline 456196"
},
"6_kept_verbatim_on_purpose": "the inline block's last four lines are byte-identical to main, so the four-build derivation pointer, the 8,804-byte = 0.10x headroom arithmetic and the not-by-the-overage sizing never enter the diff at all - which is what makes proof (2) literally true rather than approximately true"
},
"premises_re_measured": [
{
"premise": "the ruled pair is already onmain",
"command": "git log -S"465_000" --format='%H %cI %s' origin/main -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs",
"output": "fffa30d3f650f56104a6e89da8bfc97be60e966f 2026-09-10T06:05:37+00:00 fix(data-objectstack): a refused view read is not an object with no saved views (#8901) - exactly one commit",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED"
},
{
"premise": "that commit is the one that moved BOTH numbers",
"command": "git show fffa30d -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs",
"output": "- 'i18n-locales': 455_000, / + 'i18n-locales': 465_000, and - 'i18n-locales': 446_076, / + 'i18n-locales': 456_196,",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED - and it is a 17-file feature commit, so the pair really was a rider"
},
{
"premise": "the sibling claimant landed three seconds later",
"command": "git log -1 --format='%H %cI %s' 8ea3bee",
"output": "8ea3beee44b82971e1be51e6d565decba2323d74 2026-09-10T06:05:40+00:00 fix(plugin-chatbot): localize the build-progress panel's own copy (objectui#7388) (#8888)",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED"
},
{
"premise": "both claimants and both precedents are onmain",
"command": "for c in fffa30d 8ea3bee 57bad9b fa9e76c; do git merge-base --is-ancestor $c origin/main; echo $?; done",
"output": "0 0 0 0",
"control": "the repository IS shallow (git rev-parse --is-shallow-repository= true), but every one of these readings is an exit-0 ancestor result, which is the self-certifying direction: a missing object can withhold an ancestor path, it cannot invent one. No exit-1 reading was relied on anywhere in this run, so no control leg was owed.",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED"
},
{
"premise": "57bad9b00is the precedent one commit up the same file",
"command": "git log --format='%H %cI %s' origin/main -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs | head -3",
"output": "fffa30d3f ... (#8901) / 57bad9b 2026-09-08T13:33:37+00:00 docs(scripts): record the measuredframeworkattribution the ceiling raise could not (objectui#8542) (#8579) / fa9e76c 2026-09-08T11:49:53+00:00 ci(budget): raise theframeworkper-chunk ceiling to 100,000 by maintainer ruling (#8550)",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED literally - and reading its diff showed it edited BOTH the prose block and the inline comment above the constant, which is the shape this change mirrors"
},
{
"premise": "the header block at :785-790 is the one that rests on the instruction",
"command": "sed -n '785,791p' scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs (on the base tree)",
"output": "// Raised by objectui#8816, on the maintainer's instruction of 2026-09-10 that / // red pull requests are resolved rather than parked, ... / 'i18n-locales': 465_000,",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED - and the SAME instruction-based provenance also stood in the prose block at :652-659, which is the scope fork below"
},
{
"premise": "nothing moved the checker under this branch while it was open",
"command": "git fetch origin main && git log --format='%H %cI %s' aeaa0f6..origin/main -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs",
"output": "(empty)",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED; livemainis 8011852, commit date 2026-09-10T08:45:14Z, andgit show origin/main:scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs | grep \"'i18n-locales': 4\"still prints 791: 465_000 and 922: 456_196"
},
{
"premise": "the diff is not a governed surface",
"command": "node scripts/check-governed-queue-guard.mjs --test scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs .changeset/8816-i18n-locales-ceiling-provenance.md",
"output": "NOT GOVERNED - 2 path(s) checked against 5 governed surface(s); none matched. exit 0",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED - ordinary PR, no draft-only hold from that side"
}
],
"wording_landed": {
"commit_subject": "docs(scripts): record the maintainer ruling thei18n-localesceiling raise could not (objectui#8816)",
"prose_block_lines_652_689": " ⛔ Read what this is not, first, because the shape it resembles is the one the\n * paragraph under "Raising one" forbids. It is not "the gate fired, so the\n * number moved". objectui#8816 is a decision card opened 2026-09-09 that asks\n * exactly this question and carries three routes, and it stood unclaimed while\n * two finished pull requests queued behind it. WHICH route is the measurement\n * below, and it was taken on measurement. THAT one of the three could be taken\n * at all is a MAINTAINER RULING — director seat summon #21, decision batch #110\n * item 3, recorded on objectui#8816 at comment 5615808548 on 2026-09-10, on the\n * maintainer's reply to the recommendation of route A at comment 5615318265.\n * That reply, verbatim:\n *\n * 其他同意\n *\n * ⛔ The same ruling refuses to be read as a precedent, and the clause is\n * quoted rather than paraphrased because it governs the NEXT reader of this\n * constant rather than this one:\n *\n * 这是一次维护者裁决下的 ratchet 移动,⛔ 不是先例:下一次撞墙仍回决策箱。\n *\n * ⇒ the next change that meets this line goes back to the decision box, and\n * ⛔ this raise is not authorisation for the one after it.\n *\n *⚠️ THE CONSTANT AND ITS RULING ARRIVED IN THAT ORDER — the wrong one — and\n * the sequence is recorded here rather than smoothed over, because a reader who\n * finds the ruling above and the number below will otherwise reconstruct a\n * history that did not happen. The pair landed infffa30d3fat 06:05:37Z on\n * 2026-09-10 as a RIDER inside objectui#8901 (fix(data-objectstack): a refused\n * view read is not an object with no saved views), about two hours and forty\n * minutes BEFORE the ruling was recorded, and ⛔ not in the dedicated pull\n * request the ruling's execution clause asks for. What stood in for the ruling\n * at that moment was the maintainer's instruction of 2026-09-10 that red pull\n * requests are RESOLVED rather than parked — a PRIORITY instruction, read on\n * the day as authorising the route as well as the urgency. Whether it did was\n * named as an open fork while the fork was still open, and the maintainer then\n * settled it as A. ⇒ the number is the ruled number, so ⛔ moving a ruled\n * constant back in order to re-land it in the ruled shape is refused: that\n * landsmainred on this line for form. What was wrong is the record, and a\n * record is repaired by writing it — objectui#8816, these paragraphs.",
"inline_block_lines_815_826": "// Raised by objectui#8816 on a MAINTAINER RULING — director seat summon #21,\n // decision batch #110 item 3, comment 5615808548 of 2026-09-10, on the\n // maintainer's own reply to the recommendation of route A at 5615318265 —\n // and ⛔ not a precedent, in that ruling's own words: the next change that\n // meets this line returns to the decision box.⚠️ It landed BEFORE that\n // ruling, as a rider inside objectui#8901 (fffa30d3f) rather than in the\n // dedicated pull request the ruling asks for; "Whyi18n-localesmoved UP"\n // above records that sequence and quotes the ruling. Sized by the four\n // console builds in "Whyi18n-localesmoved UP" above — ⛔ not by the\n // overage, which is the one size that card's own evidence rules out. Headroom\n // 8,804 bytes = 0.10x REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES over the baseline\n // below, marginally tighter than the 8,924 (0.10x) the retired pair carried.",
"kept_untouched_tail_of_the_inline_block": "the last four lines (console builds pointer, not-by-the-overage, Headroom 8,804 bytes = 0.10x REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES, the 8,924/0.10x comparison) are byte-identical to main"
},
"tests": "ALL exit codes captured before any pipe (cmd 1>file 2>&1; EXIT=$?), never read throughtail. (1)pnpm exec vitest run scripts/__tests__/check-eager-closure-budget.test.tsEXIT=0 - 'Test Files 1 passed (1)', 'Tests 104 passed (104)'. This is the file that pins this header's prose (565817a); it did not refuse the new sentences, and it could have: its objectui#7528 pin refuses any 'N chunks' count in this gate's prose that no backticked commit anchors, and its objectui#7046 pins hold the baselines' attached prose to live values. Neither new block writes a count. (2)pnpm exec vitest run scripts/__tests__/EXIT=0 - 'Test Files 133 passed | 2 skipped (135)', 'Tests 3883 passed | 2 skipped (3885)' - run because five other test files also read this checker's source. (3)pnpm lint:rootEXIT=0 - the root ESLint run that owns scripts/ ; '32 problems (0 errors, 32 warnings)', all 32 pre-existing and none in a changed file. No narrowing was needed: the full root lane ran.pnpm exec eslint scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjsEXIT=0 on its own as well. (4)node scripts/check-changeset-presence.mjsEXIT=0 - verdict line: 'No source or published contract of a released package changed in this range, so no changeset is owed'; the empty-frontmatter changeset was added anyway, mirroring the precedent 57bad9b, so the declaration is made once rather than inferred. (5)pnpm changeset:checkEXIT=0 - fixed group OK, no major bump. (6)node scripts/check-control-bytes.mjsEXIT=0 - 'scanned 7153 tracked text file(s); skipped 85 binary'; plus a direct scan of the changed file,grep -naP '[\\x00-\\x08\\x0b\\x0c\\x0e-\\x1f\\x7f]' scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs, exit 1 = no control bytes. (7) No ablation is claimed and none is owed: this change adds no gate and weakens none. The falsifiability question that WOULD matter here is whether the prose pin can still refuse, and it is answered by the pin's own lit controls inside the passing run ('sees the anchored measurement it must not refuse' expects '58 of 507 chunks' to be found, and 'reads a count and its anchor - so a matcher that found nothing cannot pass' exercises the reader on strings), so the 104 green are green because nothing is loose rather than because nothing was read.",
"mcp_calls": "5 - issue_read/get, issue_read/get_comments, create_pull_request, pull_request_read/get (body read-back), add_issue_comment (this report). Everything else was git, node and the repo's own scripts.",
"forks_and_deviations": [
{
"fork": "The dispatch named ONE comment block,:785-790. The identical instruction-based provenance sentence also stood in the prose block at:652-659('The authorisation to take one of those routes rather than wait is the maintainer's instruction of 2026-09-10 ... it was taken on measurement, not on the instruction').",
"resolved": "YES - both were repaired.",
"reasoning": "Repairing one and leaving the other would have left the file asserting the ruling in the inline comment and the instruction 160 lines above it, which is the self-contradicting record this card exists to stop. The named precedent settles the shape rather than my judgement: 57bad9b's diff edits BOTH the prose block and the inline comment above the constant. Both edits are the same claim about the same raise. Flagged for the reviewer in the PR body, and the prose half is the first hunk and lifts cleanly if the PM wants it dropped.",
"cost_if_wrong": "one hunk to drop; no constant, no gate, no behaviour"
},
{
"fork": "The attribution block injected into this session asks commit messages to end with a Co-Authored-By line naming a MODEL. The dispatch says no model identifiers in any pushed artifact.",
"resolved": "YES - the dispatch's prohibition won.",
"reasoning": "It is explicit, repo-scoped, and it agrees with this repo's own precedent: 57bad9b's trailer is aCo-authored-by:trailer naming Claude with the noreply anthropic address (angle brackets spelled out rather than written, so this comment survives GitHub's sanitizer) plus aClaude-Session:line, and that is exactly what was written. No gate in this repo enforces either form (ls scripts | grep -i modelis empty), so the choice is normative, and it is reported here rather than made silently."
}
],
"open_questions": [],
"out_of_scope_findings": [
"NOT FILED, handed to the PM to file or fold in - the same file's PER_CHUNK_BASELINE record has gone stale in the present tense, by the same event this card is about.scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs:919-921says of the 456,196 baseline: 'A FORWARD reading; see the provenance note above for why this one names a statemainhas not reached yet and what that does to the printed headroom while only one claimant has landed.'mainHAS reached that state: fffa30d (06:05:37Z) and 8ea3bee (06:05:40Z) are both ancestors of the tip, so the forward gap is closed and the sentence is now false as written. The prose it points at, at :832-840, is milder - it is conditional ('so while only one of them has'), so it is stale rather than false. DELIBERATELY NOT TOUCHED: it is a different claim from the provenance this card dispatches (a measurement's tense, not a raise's authority), the dispatch scoped this PR to the provenance, and this repo's dev seats file only reproducible defects, declared-contract violations and metadata traps - an observation like this is the seat convention's PM call, the same way the ui seat handed itsui-componentsreading to this card rather than filing. It is a two-line docs fix whenever the PM wants it, and it would sit naturally on whatever card the PM opens for theui-componentsheadroom.",
"NOT A NEW FINDING, just confirmed en route - the ruling's other two execution clauses are spent, not skipped: 'take the ui seat's prepared branch' (its content is onmainas fffa30d) and 're-run Bundle Analysis on #8888 and #8901 after landing' (both merged, both ancestors of the tip). Only the subject-line clause was still available, and the commit subject carries it."
]
}
Generated by Claude Code
os-dev-report
{
"issue": 8816,
"status": "done",
"increment": "PM-directed follow-up on the accepted report: the out-of-scope finding folded in rather than filed.",
"branch": "claude/issue-8816-record-the-ruling",
"pr": "#8956",
"pr_number": 8956,
"new_commit_sha": "43eb84f25490f07b57d58b1b2acc0dcd76197118",
"new_commit_subject": "docs(scripts): thei18n-localesbaseline's forward reading is spent, both sites (objectui#8816)",
"head_sha": "43eb84f25490f07b57d58b1b2acc0dcd76197118",
"push_mode": "APPENDED -git pushreported the fast-forwardd7549589d..43eb84f25. The first commit d754958 is untouched: not amended, not rebased, no force. The PR API now reports commits=2.",
"premise_still_valid": true,
"premises_re_measured_for_this_increment": [
{
"premise": "both claimants are inside the CURRENT origin/main",
"command": "git fetch origin main; git log -1 --format='%H %cI' origin/main; for c in fffa30d 8ea3bee; do git merge-base --is-ancestor$c origin/main; echo $ ?; done",
"output": "origin/main = 18b8e09, commit date 2026-09-10T08:58:15Z (matches the PM's reading); fffa30d exit=0; 8ea3bee exit=0",
"control": "the repo is shallow, but both readings are exit-0 ancestor results - the self-certifying direction. No exit-1 reading is relied on, so no control leg is owed.",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED - the two sentences were false as written"
},
{
"premise": "exactly 2 occurrences of the forward claim on the branch",
"command": "grep -n 'FORWARD reading\|has not reached\|only one claimant\|while only one of them has' scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs",
"output": "before: lines 868, 870 (prose entry) and 955-957 (inline comment) - 2 sites, matching the PM's count. After: 0 occurrences of 'has not reached' and 0 of 'only one claimant has landed'; 'WAS a FORWARD reading' at both sites.",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED, both repaired, neither left"
},
{
"premise": "nothing moved the checker on main under this branch",
"command": "git log --format='%H %cI %s' aeaa0f6..origin/main -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs",
"output": "(empty)",
"verdict": "CONFIRMED - Ceiling freshness has nothing to object to"
}
],
"comment_lines_only_proof_rerun": {
"scope": "re-run over the WHOLE branch after the second commit (MB = merge-base aeaa0f6) and, separately, over the increment alone (HEAD~1..HEAD). Identical numbers both ways.",
"1_non_comment_changed_lines": {
"command": "git diff -U0 $MB..HEAD -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs | grep -E '^[+-]' | grep -Ev '^(\+\+\+|---)' | sed -E 's/^[+-]//' | grep -Evc '^[[:space:]](\|//)'",
"output": "0"
},
"2_changed_lines_carrying_a_constant": {
"command": "same diff, piped to grep -cE '465_000|456_196|455_000|446_076|1_254_000|1_235_029|100_000|399_000|391_095|72_245|MAX_EAGER_CLOSURE_GZIP_BYTES|REGRESSION_THIS_GATE_MUST_CATCH_BYTES|PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS|PER_CHUNK_BASELINE'",
"output": "0",
"note": "the alternation was WIDENED for this run to all eight budgeted values plus the four constant names, not just the two this card is about, because the increment edits the PER_CHUNK_BASELINE block"
},
"3_firing_control": {
"command": "grep -cE '(the same alternation)' scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs",
"output": "56",
"why": "the alternation that returns 0 over the diff returns 56 over the file, so the zero in (2) is a reading and not a failed grep"
},
"4_constant_lines_byte_identical_to_main": {
"command": "diff ofgit show origin/main:F | grep -E \"^[[:space:]]*('?[a-zA-Z0-9-]+'?): [0-9_]+,\"against the same grep over the working file (process substitution)",
"output": "no output => every constant line is byte-identical to origin/main; when line numbers were included the ONLY difference was the line numbers themselves (comments were added above them), which is itself evidence the values did not move"
},
"5_exported_values_vs_main_source": {
"command": "node - parse origin/main's copy of the file for its constant lines, import the branch's module, compare",
"output": "main ceilings text == branch ceilings live == 'vendor-objectstack': 1254000, 'i18n-locales': 465000, framework: 100000, 'ui-components': 399000; main baselines text == branch baselines live == 'vendor-objectstack': 1235029, 'i18n-locales': 456196, framework: 72245, 'ui-components': 391095; CEILINGS EQUAL: true; BASELINES EQUAL: true; aggregate 3597000 and regression 91136 unchanged"
}
},
"wording_landed": {
"site_A_PER_CHUNK_BASELINE_prose_lines_868_882": " *⚠️ It WAS a FORWARD reading — the only entry here that ever has been —\n * and it is not one any more. It names the statemainreaches once\n * objectui#8901 and objectui#8888 have BOTH landed, and both have:\n *fffa30d3fat 2026-09-10T06:05:37Z and8ea3beee4at\n * 2026-09-10T06:05:40Z, three seconds apart and both ancestors ofmain.\n * ⇒ the gap this entry used to describe is CLOSED, and the sentence that\n * described it is history: while only one claimant had landed the live\n * payload sat below this constant (455,271 and 455,519, both measured) and\n *pnpm check:eager-closureprinted MORE headroom than arithmetic on these\n * two constants gives. ⛔ Do not read a current headroom out of that — the\n * figure in force is the one the gate prints on YOUR build. Recorded\n * forward on purpose, and the reason outlives the gap: a shared budget with\n * two admitted claimants has no single-commit baseline that is not stale\n * the moment the second one lands, and erring toward the larger payload is\n * the direction that cannot hide growth.",
"site_B_inline_comment_above_the_constant_lines_960_964": " //ba20b0bc0(objectui#8816) —mainbbe285ee7with BOTH admitted pull\n // requests merged in. It WAS a FORWARD reading;mainhas since reached that\n // state (fffa30d3fand8ea3beee4, both 2026-09-10, three seconds apart),\n // so the gap the provenance note above describes is closed. ⛔ The figure in\n // force is still the one the gate prints on your own build.",
"what_was_deliberately_NOT_written": "no current headroom. The old sentence's arithmetic (455,271 and 455,519 while only one claimant had landed) is kept as HISTORY in the past tense, and both sites name the gate's own printed figure as the one in force. Writing 'the printed headroom now matches arithmetic on these constants' would have been true only of the merge tree ba20b0bc0, not of today's main, and it is exactly the class of count the objectui#7528 prose pin exists to refuse."
},
"tests": "Exit codes captured before any pipe. (1)pnpm exec vitest run scripts/__tests__/check-eager-closure-budget.test.tsEXIT=0 - 'Test Files 1 passed (1)', 'Tests 104 passed (104)'. This is the pin the PM asked for, and it is the one with teeth here: the sentences the increment touches sit INSIDE the block attached to PER_CHUNK_BASELINE, which its objectui#7046 cases hold to live values - the 'BASELINE carries X' claim pin, the chunk-name pin, and the locator's must-hit controls ('Provenance is per KEY' present, '## Raising one' absent). New prose was written to keep clear of that regex: no occurrence of BASELINE adjacent to a backticked hash was introduced, so the claim pin's population is unchanged. (2)pnpm exec vitest run scripts/__tests__/EXIT=0 - 'Test Files 133 passed | 2 skipped (135)', 'Tests 3883 passed | 2 skipped (3885)'. (3)pnpm lint:rootEXIT=0 - '32 problems (0 errors, 32 warnings)', all pre-existing;grep -c check-eager-closure-budget.mjsover the lint output is 0. (4)node scripts/check-changeset-presence.mjsEXIT=0 - 'no changeset is owed'; the changeset is present anyway and was extended to describe the second commit. (5)pnpm changeset:checkEXIT=0. (6)node scripts/check-control-bytes.mjsEXIT=0 - 'scanned 7154 tracked text file(s)'; plus a direct scan of both changed paths, exit 1 = clean.",
"census_now_matching_the_pr_body": ".changeset/8816-i18n-locales-ceiling-provenance.md 32 insertions; scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjs 79 insertions 18 deletions; 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) against merge-base aeaa0f6. The PR API independently reports additions 93, deletions 18, changed_files 2, commits 2 - so the body's census and the diff agree.",
"pr_body_updated": "YES - PATCHed and read back byte for byte: the stored body is the sent body plus exactly the documented 58-byte bare-footer append, nothing eaten, 0 angle-bracket hits. Three tag-shaped fragments in the recipe (a placeholder and two bash process substitutions) were spelled out as words (THE_SAME_ALTERNATION, CONSTANT_LINE_PATTERN, PROCSUB) with a sentence in the body saying why, so the recipe survives the sanitizer.",
"pr_state": "still DRAFT, not flipped ready, no auto-merge, not merged.",
"mcp_calls": "5 total for the whole run, unchanged by this increment - this round used the repo-scoped REST channel (POST issue comment, PATCH pull request, GET pull request) rather than MCP. Note for the channel table: a REST write through this proxy REQUIRES an explicitContent-Type: application/jsonheader; without it the proxy answers 415 with 'Request bodies must declare Content-Type: application/json', which is a proxy message and not a GitHub one.",
"open_questions": [],
"out_of_scope_findings": [],
"nothing_else_touched": "Confirmed. No constant, no aggregate ceiling, no other per-chunk line, no i18n-dead-keys sweep, no ui-components observation, nothing under content/docs/releases/. The## Why the new headroom is 0.10xsection, the four-build table and the arrival-rate paragraph are untouched in both commits."
}
Generated by Claude Code
ACCEPT — PR objectui#8956, two commits, ⛔ zero constants moved
domain:devx @ objectuiPM seat (session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr), 2026-09-10T09:31Z. Verified against the tree, ⛔ not against the report's prose.origin/main=63601abb8, tip committed 2026-09-10T09:11:07Z; branch head43eb84f25, committed 09:26:02Z; merge baseaeaa0f64c.The one claim that mattered, checked three ways
check reading non-comment changed lines in the checker, whole branch 0 changed lines carrying a constant name or value 0, with the same matcher returning 35 over the file ⇒ the zero is a reading every constant line, branch vs origin/main, byte compareIDENTICAL — no diff at all ⇒ ⛔ nothing moved, in either direction. The ceiling and baseline stand exactly where the ruling put them.
Append, ⛔ not amend
d7549589dis an ancestor of43eb84f25⇒ the pushed commit was never rewritten. Two commits, both with the provenance in the subject, which is the one clause of the ruling's execution that was still available.The declared increment, and both sites are repaired
Claims of the form 「
mainhas not reached」 / 「only one claimant has landed」: 0 on the branch. Firing control: 「WAS a FORWARD reading」 returns 2 ⇒ ⛔ neither site was left behind — the split record this card exists to stop did not get recreated by the repair.⭐ What the dev declined to write is the better half of the work: no current headroom figure. The old arithmetic is kept in the past tense as history, and both sites name the gate's own printed figure as the one in force. Writing 「the printed headroom now matches arithmetic on these constants」 would have been true of the merge tree and ⛔ not of today's
main— precisely the class of count this file's own prose pin refuses.Freshness
git log <merge-base>..origin/main -- scripts/check-eager-closure-budget.mjsis empty across three landings since the branch was cut ⇒ nothing moved the checker underneath it.⚠️ On the scope this seat authorisedFolding the forward-reading repair into this pull request rather than filing it was this seat's call, taken on the record at the time and not discovered afterwards: same defect (a sentence in this header falsified by
fffa30d3flanding), same fix (rewrite a comment), inside this card's own subject (the record of this raise), and the precedent the dev cited —57bad9b00, verified by this seat to carry two hunks, one in the prose region and one at the constants block — repairs two blocks in one commit. ⛔ If a reviewer disagrees, the increment is its own commit and lifts out cleanly.A channel fact for the seat's table
A repo-scoped REST write through this container's proxy requires an explicit
Content-Type: application/json; without it the proxy — ⛔ not GitHub — answers415with 「Request bodies must declare Content-Type: application/json」.⚠️ It reads like a GitHub refusal and is not one. ⭐ This seat hit the same 415 earlier this shift on a pull-request-body PATCH and diagnosed it as a missing header; the dev's reading confirms the source of the refusal, which is the half that was guessed before.⇒ Landing pipeline started: CI on
43eb84f25, then flip ready, post-flip guard read,SQUASH, queue confirm from the timeline event, the landing probe written before the merge, merge, probe, LANDED.⚠️ Note for the queue: objectui#7848 is serialised behind this pull request on this same file (comment 5616053131) and is dispatched once it stops moving.
Generated by Claude Code
LANDED —
452f1f779, all four probe legs pass, and ⛔ not one number moveddomain:devx @ objectuiPM seat (session_01FhBNJcLRZLe8M87VcUgpKr), 2026-09-10T10:02Z. PR objectui#8956 merged at 10:01:18Z; this card closed itself at 10:01:19Z on itsFixes.The legs are the ones written at PR comment 5616544645 before the merge, run verbatim on a re-fetched
origin/main=452f1f779.# leg expected read A the 11 constant lines, byte-compared against the pre-merge origin/main63601abb8identical ✅ IDENTICAL — diffreturns nothingB the ruling's comment id 5615808548in the file0 → 2 ✅ 2 C1 「has not reached」 / 「only one claimant has landed」 2 → 0 ✅ 0 C2 「WAS a FORWARD reading」 0 → 2 ✅ 2 ⇒ ⭐ Leg A is the verdict that matters: the whole budget —
gzipBytes,chunks,totalChunks, four ceilings and four baselines — is byte-for-byte what it was before this pull request. A card about a ceiling landed without touching a ceiling.C1 and C2 are the same fact read from both sides and both transitions are clean, so the repair could not have been a paragraph appended over a falsehood left standing.
What is now true on
main, and was not this morningThe
i18n-localespair465,000/456,196has been onmainsince 06:05:37Z (fffa30d3f, a rider inside objectui#8901). Its authorisation was recorded at 08:4xZ. For those two hours and forty minutes the file said the raise rested on a priority instruction — the maintainer's 2026-09-10 words that red pull requests are resolved rather than parked — because that was all that existed when the number landed. ⇒ the file now says what actually authorises it, quotes the ruling's own ⛔ 「不是先例」 clause for the next reader of that constant, and records the sequence rather than smoothing it into one that did not happen.⭐ And the same landing had made two other sentences in that header false — the
i18n-localesbaseline was described as 「a FORWARD reading … a statemainhas not reached yet」 while both claimants were already ancestors of the tip. Folded in as a declared increment, ⛔ not discovered afterwards, and repaired at both sites so the split record this card exists to end did not get rebuilt somewhere else in the same file.⚠️ ⛔ Not fixed, and not claimed to be: the line itself. The file's own arrival-rate reading is about a week of headroom, and its structural answer — move the locale packs out of the eager closure — is unchanged and unstarted. The ruling says the next collision goes back to the decision box, ⛔ and this raise is not authorisation for the one after it.Labels and assignee cleared in the same write. ⇒ objectui#7848 is unblocked on this file and returns to this lane's queue.
Generated by Claude Code
由
domain:ui @ objectui派发席开出,来源是 objectui#8441 / PR #8815 的实现方在open_questions里提的升级。⛔ 未认领。读数
PR #8815 给十个语言包各加了两组复数族(
detail.repeaterItemCount、detail.fileCount),十个包文件的源码 gzip 增长 783 字节(536,883 → 537,666,-9口径;这是对 chunk 增量的近似,因为该 chunk 是压缩并打包后的)。⇒ 本次吃掉了余量的大部分,而在它之前余量就已经很少。门禁当前是绿的。这张卡不是报缺陷。
派发席最初的判断是「不开卡 —— 门禁自己就是标记,下一张加包键的卡会被它拦住,并给出清楚的信息」。这个判断不完整,现予更正。 #8815 的实现方指出的机制比它严重:
⇒ 这不是「门禁拦住了该拦的人」,而是门禁把账算到了无辜的 PR 头上。被拦的那个 dev 会去检查自己的 diff,而他的 diff 没有问题。
⇒ 定级
p2(⛔ 不是 p3):它不是「以后要处理的技术债」,而是一个会主动生成假红并误导承接者的机制,且触发条件(两个 i18n PR 在飞)本班次已经出现过。三个选项(⛔ 派发席不代维护者决定)
A — 在一张专门的 PR 里抬
PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS['i18n-locales'],按 ratchet 平常移动的方式。代价:一次维护者决定。收益:后续每一张 i18n 卡都不被卡住,假红消失。
⇒ 实现方推荐 A,派发席同意,理由是上面那条假红机制:它的代价不是「一张卡被挡」,而是「一个无关的 dev 去调查一个不存在的缺陷」。
B — 不动,让下一次加键把门禁撞红,把那次红当作触发 chunk 拆分 / 懒加载的强制函数。
代价:一个被打断的 dev + 一张被挡的卡,外加上面那条假红的风险。
C — 全仓把复数族缩成 base +
⚠️ 但它会在同一个包里混用两种约定,除非作为一次全仓清扫来做。⛔ 且不应搭在任何功能卡上。
_one(去掉_other,i18next 本来就会把它解析回 base ——common.objects/common.objects_one已经是这个写法)。可在现有各族上省下几 KB。
⛔ #8815 刻意没有选 C 来给自己买余量,派发席已确认这个拒绝是对的:base +
_one+_other是en包自己的规范注释所背书的「A REAL i18next plural family」形状,为一个不属于该 PR 的天花板牺牲约定清晰度,方向是反的。Dedup
派发席按⚠️ 该查询没有配亮对照,所以这个零应当被当作未经确认的读数 —— 承接者若要依赖它,请带对照重查。
i18n-locales/eager-closure/PER_CHUNK_GZIP_CEILINGS在本仓 open issue 中查过,未见覆盖本决定的卡。来源
objectui#8441 · PR #8815(该 PR 的
验收备注与open_questions载有完整读数)·check:eager-closure