Remove document result overlays

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Remove the auto-rendered Selected evidence panel from document-search results so it no longer occupies the source list on phones or desktops.
• Remove the associated Preview control and selection-only state while retaining the working Open, Scope, and Answer actions.
• Suppress the grouped orange source-governance notice on document-search results only. Search-scope notices, warning metadata, answer/evidence warning handling, and retrieval/ranking behavior remain unchanged.
• Add component and browser regressions for the removed surfaces.

Root cause: the first document was selected by fallback on every result set, so the evidence panel rendered even without user interaction and stacked beneath the source list on phones. The shared governance notice also rendered the grouped warning rows above document results.

RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — presentation-only document-result cleanup; source warning metadata, evidence selection, ranking, and answer safety logic are unchanged.

Verification

• npm run verify:pr-local
  • Attempted. Runtime passed, then the gate stopped at installed/lock parity: Next 16.2.11 vs 16.2.12, React/React DOM 19.2.7 vs 19.2.8, and Playwright 1.61.1 vs 1.62.0.
• npm run verify:ui
  • Full matrix not run because the same installed/lock parity guard would stop it.
• node scripts/run-vitest.mjs run tests/document-search-record-fault.dom.test.tsx --reporter=verbose — 4/4 passed.
• Focused Chromium journey at 390×820 and 1440×900 — 1 passed, including the isolated production build, TypeScript, remaining source actions, and no horizontal overflow.
• Changed-file ESLint — passed with zero warnings.
• npm run check:pr-policy — passed.
• git diff --check — passed.
• npm run verify:release — not run for this draft UI PR.
• npm run check:production-readiness — not run; provider-gated and outside the GitHub-only approval for opening this PR.

Retrieval/ranking/live-eval verification was not run because this change does not alter retrieval, ranking, selection, chunking, scoring, or answer generation.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: Low, localized UI removal. The document-results governance banner is intentionally no longer rendered; source warning metadata and other answer/evidence warning surfaces remain available.
• Rollback: Revert commit ad739a3a435535a03f6a2c43f1be89d277343590.
• Provider or production effects: GitHub branch push and draft PR creation only, explicitly authorized. No Supabase, OpenAI, Railway, deployment, or production-data effects.

Clinical Governance Preflight

• Source-backed claims still require linked source verification before clinical use; exact Open links remain on every result card.
• No patient-identifiable document workflow was introduced or expanded.
• Supabase target remains Clinical KB Database (sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy); no Supabase configuration changed.
• Service-role keys and private document access remain server-only; no auth or access code changed.
• Demo/synthetic content remains clearly separated from real clinical sources.
• Source metadata and governance calculations remain unchanged; only the grouped document-results banner is suppressed.
• No clinical decision-support or deployment-classification behavior changed.

Notes

• Opened as a draft because the shared installed dependencies do not match the lockfile, so the full local PR/UI gates cannot be represented as green.

[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 recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in:47 minutes

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 for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 01fd37ed-73b6-4dd0-a0ca-10c00dd2d939

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between be83f5c and c3feb4c.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• docs/branch-review-ledger.md
• src/components/clinical-dashboard/document-search-results.tsx
• tests/document-search-record-fault.dom.test.tsx
• tests/ui-smoke.spec.ts

---

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

[BigSimmo]

@cursoragent Inspect the PR and repository state, identify the root cause of every failing CI check, unresolved review comment, merge conflict, and related defect. Apply the smallest robust fix using existing project patterns and best practices, without unrelated changes. Run Bugbot and all relevant lint, type-check, test, build, and CI-equivalent commands, fix any issues found, then resolve only the review comments that are fully addressed. Summarise the root causes, changes made, validation results, and any remaining blockers.

[cursor]

PR #1378 is merged. Squash auto-merge landed once required CI went green (6f2f1aa2).

Root causes found

Issue	Cause
Codex P1 ×2	Original tip suppressed all ScopeAndGovernanceNotice warnings (showGovernanceWarnings={false}), so outdated / poor-extraction / review-due caveats disappeared while Open/Scope/Answer stayed
Merge drift	Branch fell 1 commit behind main mid-babysit (clean merge-tree)
No failing CI at start	Only Production UI was still running; no merge conflicts; no unresolved threads initially
CodeRabbit	Rate-limited / spending-cap — no actionable findings
Hosted Bugbot	No cursor[bot] finding threads; ran local pr-bugbot instead

Changes made

• Restored full governance notice on document results (overlays/Preview still removed).
• Updated DOM regression to assert overlays gone and danger + review-due warnings still render.
• Merged origin/main, pushed, replied + resolved both Codex threads.
• Requested @cursor review (Bugbot).

Validation

• Local: verify:cheap — 4273 passed / 4 skipped; focused DOM 4/4; eslint; tsc; build
• Hosted tip: PR required, Production UI, Static, Unit, Build, Safety, PR policy — all SUCCESS
• Bugbot: no open findings on final tip

Remaining

• Follow-up draft for the post-merge ledger tip row: docs(ledger): record PR #1378 merge closeout #1384
• CodeRabbit still capped (no product blocker)

[BigSimmo]

@CodeRabbit review PR

[coderabbitai]

@BigSimmo I’ll review PR #1378, focusing on the document-result UI removal and preserving the remaining source actions and warning behavior.

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit:ad739a3a43

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]

@codex resolve actionable Codex review findings for this pull request and current head using the repository instructions. This is the pull request's single automatic repair pass: do not perform a fresh review, create new standalone findings, or request another review. Work only the existing unresolved Codex threads on the current head. Always fix P0 and P1 findings. For P2 and lower findings, fix only clear, scoped, low-risk issues; otherwise disposition them with a concise reason. After fixing or dispositioning a thread, reply in that thread with as the first line, followed by a concise summary; that marker authorizes the workflow to close that exact thread. If human input or new authorization is required, do not use the marker and leave the thread open with the blocker. Finish only after every actionable thread is fixed or dispositioned and closed, or explicitly left open for a human decision. Do not update the branch from main, address unrelated reviews, broaden scope, or create more than one scoped fix commit. Do not use external APIs, paid services, credentials, dependency changes, or broad refactors unless explicitly authorized. Add targeted tests where behavior changes and run the narrowest relevant validation.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit:ad739a3a43

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".

[cursor]

@cursor review