issues: queue eight ledger requests from the Ward Flow artifact review

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Reviewed the two Ward Flow artifacts, the Command third-edition reference build (d821a155) and the third-edition design system (e7f7b6f2), against src/components/ward-management/, and queued what the review found as ledger inbox requests.
• Five new rows. Two P1: the Command mockup and ward-flow-reducer.ts give opposite answers on whether a recorded reason gets past a prior decline; and Mental Health Act authorisation sits on the overridable side of a split whose own stated test ("a fact about the world is not overridable") suggests it belongs with allocatable_bed. Three P2: the mockup emits ten eligibility gates where ELIGIBILITY_GATES has twelve, with differences in both directions; the standard's §8.3 states 23 wards across 17 sites while its own reference build carries 16 across 9; and ward-flow-reducer.ts contradicts itself on capacity_freshness, whose classification comment at line 440 calls it a non-overridable world fact while SUITABILITY_GATES at line 487 lists it as overridable under the owner ruling of 2026-09-02.
• Three updates carrying mockup evidence onto existing P1 rows. Each appends to the recorded detail and preserves the original text byte for byte, verified after writing: #BAY1TY (the prototype's reconcile check actively enforces the binary sex field, so a third value cannot be added without breaking the screen's consistency line), #6DT5K7 (the "it suggests nothing" reversal is already built, as shortlistFor() ranks every ward for the selected patient), #G4YPNE (confirmed absent across the design surface as well as the code).
• Requests only. docs/outstanding-issues.md is untouched; reconciliation runs separately from a dedicated fresh-base branch, per the ledger write discipline.
• No source, schema, retrieval, or UI change. Eight new JSON files under docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/, 103 insertions, nothing else in the diff.

Verification

• npm run check:outstanding-issues — the gate that actually covers this change.

outstanding-issues self-test passed.
outstanding-issues writer self-test passed.
ledger inbox self-test passed.
Ledger inbox check passed: 50 pending request(s), 1080 applied.
Outstanding-issues guard passed: 622 rows (121 open, 501 archived), unique display and durable ids,
collision-free allocation enabled, deprecated next-id marker ignored, no merge driver,
no ids deleted from base ef582b110f2b.
[snapshot] in step with data/outstanding-issues-snapshot.json (121 open, 0 pending)

• npx prettier --check . — All matched files use Prettier code style! (whole tree, not just the changed files).
• Verification not run: npm run verify:pr-local. The change adds inbox request records and touches no executable path, and the ledger write-discipline gate above is the check that covers it. CI's own risk routing is the backstop.
• npm run verify:ui not applicable: no UI, routing, styling, or browser behaviour changed.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: very low. Additive request records, each an immutable UUID JSON file that merges independently. No canonical ledger edit, so no conflict surface with the 50 requests already pending from other sessions.
• Rollback: delete the eight files, or cancel the requests through the inbox. Nothing has been applied to docs/outstanding-issues.md.
• Provider or production effects: None.
• RAG impact: none.

Clinical Governance Preflight

The change records clinical-safety questions rather than altering any clinical behaviour, so the boxes below are stated as unchanged rather than re-proved.

• Source-backed claims still require linked source verification before clinical use — unchanged.
• No patient-identifiable document workflow was introduced or expanded. Every figure discussed comes from a synthetic prototype whose data is invented; the hospital sites and health services are real WA names already in the repository's own tables.
• Supabase target unchanged.
• Service-role keys and private document access unchanged, server-only.
• Demo and synthetic content remain clearly separated from real clinical sources.
• Source metadata and outdated-source behaviour unchanged.
• Deployment classification and TGA SaMD impact was checked. No classification change here, and the #6DT5K7 update sharpens an existing SaMD note: that row already flagged that a board which ranks wards for a patient sits closer to clinical decision support than one that records. The update records that such a ranked list now exists in a built artifact rather than only in conversation, which is the reason it is worth the owner seeing.

Notes

• The two P1s are decisions for the owner, not defects for an integrator to fix. Both are written so the reasoning survives whichever way they are settled.
• Two of the eight are worth reading before the rest: the prior-decline contradiction, because a coordinator trained on the prototype would be wrong in the direction of not ringing a ward that would now say yes; and the capacity_freshness self-contradiction, because the misleading half is the prose comment a reader meets first, and it has already propagated into #Q6WD1M's reconstructed detail.
• Reconciliation is deliberately left for a separate dedicated branch, so this PR can merge alongside the other pending inbox requests without serialising on them.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01GH4wXxKZKVaAvaRmqjck88

---

Generated by Claude Code

---

Note

Low Risk
Additive inbox JSON only; clinical behaviour and the canonical ledger are unchanged until reconcile applies these requests.

Overview
Queues eight immutable ledger inbox requests under docs/outstanding-issues-inbox/ from the Ward Flow Command mockup and third-edition standard review against ward-management. docs/outstanding-issues.md is not edited; reconciliation stays on a separate branch.

Five new issues: two P1 rows flag owner decisions—prior decline is absolute in the mockup but ignored for re-approach in the reducer, and MHA authorisation is treated as overridable despite the standard’s “world fact” test. Three P2 rows cover eligibility gate list drift (mockup vs ELIGIBILITY_GATES), §8.3 ward/site counts vs Command UNITS, and a stale comment in ward-flow-reducer.ts that still groups capacity_freshness with non-overridable world facts while SUITABILITY_GATES lists it as overridable.

Three updates append mockup/design evidence to existing rows #BAY1TY, #6DT5K7, and #G4YPNE (binary sex reconcile, ranked shortlist vs “suggests nothing”, Aboriginal cultural safety gap on the design surface).

No application source, schema, or UI changes—documentation queue only.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit e3911f5. Configure here.}

[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: Advanced

Run ID: 559ab44c-a7d9-41bb-9874-a1718baca457

---

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.}

[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 2026-09-09T10:20:59.354504Z	e3911f5	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.

[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_8f3f4aaa-6bb7-4363-a66a-c4a293a70c76)

[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 ↗︎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e3911f5b48

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".

[BigSimmo]

Consolidated into #2710 at d2a1622. The complete original head e3911f5 is retained as an ancestor, including its code, tests and audit requests. Closing this duplicate review/CI stream under the authorised consolidation; source branch retained. Current verification and remaining merge prerequisites are recorded on #2710. This closure does not claim that the successor is merged or that its required CI is green.