docs: add guarded edge-ingestion overhaul plan

[BigSimmo]

Summary

• Replace the stale 1,035-file branch delta with a normal merge of current main and a two-file documentation-only scope.
• Add a revalidated three-PR edge-ingestion execution plan that requires fresh-base work, targeted formatting, exact-head CI, conservative RAG classification, and explicit approval for live/provider actions.
• Add the immutable review record for the independently reviewed pre-fix head.
• Remove all accidental test artefacts, Lighthouse output, scratch files, unrelated clinical corpus files, stale shared-ledger edits, and invalid tooling changes from the effective PR diff.

Verification

• GitHub exact-head and merge-tree verification — head 7cd0e843e61de2913419449380dac451bad8a8c6 contains base 570740c84bc77b1c5d36493fd1011625c354f6d2, is 0 commits behind, is mergeable, and changes exactly 2 files.
• Static contract review — validated the immutable six-cell review record and content-addressed path, final newline, Markdown structure, current symbols, current SQL signature, and absence of the invalid @upstash/context7-mcp@4.0.2 pin and nonexistent checklist skill.
• Distinct manual adversarial review — external Codex review was quota-blocked and CodeRabbit was rate-limited, so every retained and discarded change was independently challenged against current main.
• npm run verify:pr-local

Verification not run: the connected GitHub environment does not provide a repository checkout or installed dependencies. Exact-head repository CI is therefore the authoritative executable gate.

UI verification not run: the effective diff does not change UI, routing, styling, browser behaviour, reduced motion, or forced-colours behaviour.

Production-readiness verification not run: this PR changes planning documentation only and performs no executable ingestion, database, clinical-output, deployment, or provider action.

RAG impact: no runtime retrieval, ranking, candidate-selection, source-rendering, embedding, or answer-contract behaviour changes. The document conservatively defines future evidence and approval requirements only.

Risk and rollout

• Risk: Low. The effective diff is one planning document plus one immutable review record. The plan describes high-risk future work but does not implement it.
• Rollback: Revert this PR or remove the two added documentation files. No data migration, deployment, or provider rollback is required.
• Provider or production effects: None. No live reads, writes, migrations, deployments, evaluations, backfills, Lighthouse runs, or paid/provider-backed checks were performed.

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 behaviour remain conservative
• Deployment classification/TGA SaMD impact was checked; this PR has no clinical decision-support behaviour change

Notes

• Current head was produced by a normal two-parent merge commit. No rebase, force-push, history rewrite, or replacement branch was used.
• Existing auto-merge configuration was not changed.
• The review record references the reviewed pre-fix head d60649bbc14bfcba72d9f9a2fc65e3eff189bb41, avoiding a self-referential head-SHA convention.

[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.

[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:28 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan. You completed 90 included PR reviews in the past 7 days; at that activity level, included reviews refill 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 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: f6b901e3-5694-4118-a28c-68664e79ed56

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 087affb and 897cfa4.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• docs/branch-review-records/34ba441a8c53d4b7eaa2bb5afd846da9722498df625ff9e72b40ac86e0f75fe1.record.md
• docs/plans/edge-ingestion-overhaul-3pr-plan.md

---

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

[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 ↗︎.

[github-actions]

CI triage

CI failed on this PR. Automated classification of the 2 failed job(s):

• Static PR checks — needs investigation: inspect the failing step and uploaded diagnostics; rerun only after classifying the cause.
• PR required — needs investigation: inspect the failing step and uploaded diagnostics; rerun only after classifying the cause.

Compared with main CI run #11163 (success).

Classification is evidence routing, not permission to ignore a failure. Exact quarantined Playwright identities remain governed by the flake ledger.

[BigSimmo]

Final PR #1994 review summary

• Final reviewed head:897cfa40f67698374d60e1ee860d1fe30a51dc2f
• Base at merge:087affb37230665f6d6345228ad884cf9fb32fe7
• Final merge commit:27f6b60429ab56a0e4a779b5b16c35e9cce630db
• Final scope: 2 documentation files, 261 added lines, no runtime or generated-asset changes
• Base and merge-tree: the final head contained the latest base, was 0 commits behind, and was mergeable before the external squash merge. Only normal merge commits were used; no rebase, force-push, history rewrite, replacement branch, or auto-merge modification occurred.

Issues fixed or dispositioned

• Removed the accidental 1,035-file, +91,838-line effective scope, including unrelated clinical corpus PDFs, Playwright/Lighthouse output, temporary artefacts, logs, scratch files, and stale shared-file edits.
• Dropped the invalid @upstash/context7-mcp@4.0.2 pin and its contract-test change because that release did not exist, and removed the catalog entry for the nonexistent checklist skill.
• Replaced the unsafe repository-wide formatting instruction with targeted changed-file formatting and explicit artefact-exclusion rules.
• Revalidated the ingestion plan against current repository contracts, including structured generation, generation-aware enrichment, conservative RAG classification, live-action approval boundaries, and symbol-based revalidation instead of stale line numbers.
• Added the immutable content-addressed review record. The frozen historical ledger table was not edited.
• Corrected the final Markdown formatting defect. The temporary formatting utility was removed and left no effective workflow change.

Adversarial review and threads

• External Codex review was quota-blocked and CodeRabbit was rate-limited, so a distinct manual adversarial pass was completed and the externally moved final head was independently re-snapshotted and validated.
• No confirmed P0, P1, or reproducible P2 issue remained in the final two-file diff.
• Review threads: 0 open or unresolved. Bot quota/rate-limit notices and the superseded CI-triage comment were non-actionable.

Verification

• Required exact-head checks:Gitleaks — success; PR policy — success; PR required — success.
• Static PR checks: success, including changed-file formatting, branch-review-ledger integrity, ledger write discipline, documentation inventory, documentation links/scripts, codebase-index coverage, runtime/dependency alignment, and sitemap drift.
• Advisory checks: Semgrep SAST — success. Supabase Preview, build, UI, Lighthouse, migration replay, coverage, containers, and other runtime gates were correctly skipped for the documentation-only scope.
• A local npm run verify:pr-local run was unavailable in the connector-only environment without a repository checkout and installed dependencies. Exact-head repository CI provided the decisive executable evidence. Residual risk is low and limited to planning-document accuracy; the plan’s live/provider/database actions remain separately approval-gated.

Outcome

This review run did not invoke merge or modify auto-merge. GitHub’s pre-existing auto-merge externally squash-merged the PR at 2026-08-16 12:24:59 UTC after all required checks passed, and main now points to 27f6b60429ab56a0e4a779b5b16c35e9cce630db.

The requested stock closing sentence — “The PR was not merged. Final merge is left to the user.” — is no longer factually applicable because the existing merge workflow completed externally.