It hid two real defects — and it explicitly told the next reader not to
re-probe them.
## What the entry did
Counted **declarations** (48, then 49) and concluded the population was
benign because each one is a fallback vocabulary, a builtin column list,
or an already-converted seam.
All true of the declarations. **The declaration isn't where the defect
lives.**
## Measure the use, not the declaration
A collection used as a **membership gate against a column**. Nine exist,
and two were live user-visible defects sitting inside a population this
doc had marked clean:
| site | defect |
|---|---|
| `TIME_INDICATOR_COLUMNS.has(task.column)` — `TaskCard` | elapsed-time
indicator never rendered on a renamed board (#3014) |
| `PLANNER_ACTIVITY_COLUMN_IDS.has(task.column)` — `useTasks` | planning
border and pulsing badge never appeared (#3017) |
The other seven are genuinely fine, and the reasons are kept because
they're the shapes worth recognising: the no-flags fallback *inside* a
role helper, a seam that seeds the legacy pair then unions resolved
lanes, a marked `DELIBERATE-LITERAL` fallback chain, and a plugin with
no trait source at all.
## The tell
One question separates the two groups: **does a flags path exist in this
file at all?**
Both defects had none — the gate was the only decision, with nothing to
degrade from. Every benign case had a resolved path sitting right next
to the literal.
## Why this is worth its own PR
A "do not re-probe" note that is wrong is **worse than no note**: it
converts one person's incomplete measurement into everybody's blind
spot. That's the same failure this document already records for
`sortTasksForDisplayColumn`, one level up — there an annotation told
readers to skip a *row*, here it told them to skip a *population*.
I wrote the original entry, and I'd read past it twice myself before
#3014 forced the re-measurement.
Docs only. No code, no baselines.
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
eecc87c31e