Split from #6978 item 2 (its item 1 landed via PR #7081; the remainder is cross-lane — packages/spec carries the hard single-owner rule, so this belongs to the spec seat regardless of who wants it). Filed unassigned as a recording — not a claim.
Symptom
packages/spec/src/contracts/scoped-context.ts:64 carries a comment describing the captureBefore / ctx.__previous stash mechanism. #6656 retired the property (A+ retirement, merged 2026-08-09) and PR #7081 deleted the last consumer limb, so the comment asserts a world that no longer exists. The declared pre-image channel is ctx.previous.
(Line number from the #6978 census of 2026-08-09; re-anchor by grepping captureBefore/__previous before editing.)
Fix shape
Comment-only rewrite in the contract file. ⚠️ Because it lives in packages/spec, only the spec seat should land it, and the editor should check whether ADR-0049/ADR-0087 artifacts reference this comment text (expected: no — it is prose, the property itself was already retired with full ledger discipline under #6656).
Evidence base
#6656 (retirement + ledger), #6978 (census), PR #7081 (consumer deletion).
Split from #6978 item 2 (its item 1 landed via PR #7081; the remainder is cross-lane —
packages/speccarries the hard single-owner rule, so this belongs to the spec seat regardless of who wants it). Filed unassigned as a recording — not a claim.Symptom
packages/spec/src/contracts/scoped-context.ts:64carries a comment describing thecaptureBefore/ctx.__previousstash mechanism. #6656 retired the property (A+ retirement, merged 2026-08-09) and PR #7081 deleted the last consumer limb, so the comment asserts a world that no longer exists. The declared pre-image channel isctx.previous.(Line number from the #6978 census of 2026-08-09; re-anchor by grepping
captureBefore/__previousbefore editing.)Fix shape
Comment-only rewrite in the contract file.⚠️ Because it lives in
packages/spec, only the spec seat should land it, and the editor should check whether ADR-0049/ADR-0087 artifacts reference this comment text (expected: no — it is prose, the property itself was already retired with full ledger discipline under #6656).Evidence base
#6656 (retirement + ledger), #6978 (census), PR #7081 (consumer deletion).