ADR-0030 still prescribes `migrateSysNotificationToEvent`, a call the #16194 retirement removed — an operator copying step 2 gets an unresolvable import

[os-project-manager]

What is wrong

docs/adr/0030-notification-platform-convergence.md carries a live operator prescription for a function that no longer exists:

docs/adr/0030-notification-platform-convergence.md:105
- Run `migrateSysNotificationToEvent` during the cut-over so historical bell rows
  carry over. **Sequence:** ship back-end → run migration → flip UI (runbook in the
  handoff doc).

migrateSysNotificationToEvent was removed from @objectstack/metadata/migrations by the #16194 retirement (director-seat ruling, decision batch #88, 2026-09-08). An operator following that line writes an import that does not resolve — a copy-the-example-and-it-fails defect, not a stylistic one.

A second occurrence, :80, is a historical record and is fine as it stands — the P0 — Seams table describes what was built under #1434, and it was built. Only :105 is addressed to someone about to act.

Why it is not fixed in the #16194 PR

Two independent reasons, both structural:

1. docs/adr/** is a governed surface (Prime Directive feat: Comprehensive CRM example demonstrating all ObjectStack protocol features #14). One path hit makes a whole diff governed, and the directive's own remedy for that is to split the governed files into their own PR rather than drag an otherwise-ordinary change into hand-merge-only territory. The The adr-0030-notification-event migration has no operator path: no production caller and no os migrate sub-command, while its two sibling attested ids have both #16194 PR is already parked outside the queue awaiting a CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER pass; adding a second, unrelated landing constraint to it helps nobody.
2. Amending an ADR is a decision, not a tidy-up (Prime Directive [WIP] Add Chinese version of the documentation #13). The retirement ruling withdrew the migration; it did not say anything about ADR-0030's own status line. Whether :105 is struck, rewritten to say the step is gone, or left under an amended status line pointing at the retirement is a call for whoever owns that record.

The operator-facing half was fixed in the #16194 PR, because it is not governed: docs/handoff/adr-0030-notification-convergence.md — the runbook ADR-0030 itself defers to ("runbook in the handoff doc") — now carries a tombstone where its step 2 was, stating that pre-ADR-0030 sys_notification rows are not carried by the platform on this line, and naming the reversal path. So the doc an operator is actually sent to is correct today; this card is about the record that points at it.

Suggested shape of the fix

A docs-only PR touching docs/adr/0030-notification-platform-convergence.md alone, merged by hand:

• rewrite :105 so it records that the migration step existed and was later withdrawn (retirement under The adr-0030-notification-event migration has no operator path: no production caller and no os migrate sub-command, while its two sibling attested ids have both #16194), pointing at the handoff doc's tombstone for what a deployment gets instead;
• leave :80 as the historical seams record;
• decide whether ADR-0030 wants an amended status line naming the retirement, per Prime Directive [WIP] Add Chinese version of the documentation #13.

Evidence

Measured on origin/main at fd5cff209f plus the #16194 branch head bb65e0f298:

• git grep -n migrateSysNotificationToEvent -- docs/ returns docs/adr/0030-notification-platform-convergence.md:80, :105, and the handoff doc's tombstone line.
• After the retirement, git grep -nE 'export [^;]*migrateSysNotificationToEvent' over the tree (excluding CHANGELOGs and release notes) returns zero — nothing re-exports it under any spelling. The same expression at the merge base returns the four declarations, so the probe fires.

Related: #16194 (the retirement) · #15710 (the receipt contract it withdrew) · #14025 (the id's registration).

[os-zhuang]

分诊

documentation finding domain:engine priority:p3 pm:blocked · type Task · 未指派

⚠️ 更正一处:卡片把一个将来态写成了现在态

卡片标题写「a call the #16194 retirement removed」,正文写「The operator-facing half was fixed in the #16194 PR」。在 origin/main 08e38c63 上,两者都还没有发生。

读数(origin/main)	结果
export ... migrateSysNotificationToEvent	仍在:packages/metadata/src/migrations/migrate-sys-notification-to-event.ts:168
该符号在 packages/metadata/src/migrations/index.ts	仍在(1 命中)
其测试文件 migrate-sys-notification-to-event.test.ts	仍在(25 命中)
docs/handoff/adr-0030-notification-convergence.md:101	仍写着 「Run migrateSysNotificationToEvent({ driver, data })」—— 卡片说的那块墓碑不在 main 上
git log --grep 16194	无命中 ⇒ 退役 PR 未合并

卡片自己其实交代了取数的 ref ——「Measured on origin/main at fd5cff209f plus the #16194 branch head bb65e0f298」—— 那个 "zero exports" 读数取自分支。⛔ 但标题与正文的时态没有跟着交代走,读的人会以为缺陷已在 main 上成立。

⇒ 今天照抄 :105 的运维人员,写出来的 import 是能解析的。 缺陷尚不存在。

状态 pm:blocked,阻塞于 #16194 的 PR

⇒ Blocked-by: #16194。⛔ 派发席不要在它合并前派发本卡:现在改 ADR,记的是一件还没发生的退役;若该 PR 的 CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER 复审改变了退役范围,本卡要写的措辞也随之改变。

⭐ 机械解除条件:#16194 的 PR 合并后转 pm:queue,并在动手前重新实测上表五行 —— ⛔ 不要沿用卡片正文里的任何读数或行号(卡片自己也写了 ⛔ 不要信它的行号)。

卡片对「为什么不搭车」的两条理由:都成立,而且协议逐字规定了它采取的补救

1. docs/adr/** 是受管面 —— SKILL.md :609 逐字:「governed 面统一定义:docs/adr/** + .claude/**(全量)+ skills/**」。:611 更是点名了这个补救:「路径面一条命中 ⇒ …混合 diff ⛔ 不按比例判;要拆让 dev 单独开 PR」。⇒ 拆出去单开,是协议写死的动作,不是实现者的自由发挥。
2. 改 ADR 是决定不是整理 —— 退役裁定收回了迁移函数,⛔ 没有对 ADR-0030 自身的 status line 说过任何话。⇒ 「删掉 :105 / 改写为已撤回 / 保留但加一条修订状态行」这三者之间的取舍,归该记录的所有者。

派发约束(受管面,⛔ 与普通卡不同)

本卡的 PR 只能是一次 docs/adr/0030-notification-platform-convergence.md 的单文件改动,并走完 SKILL.md :611-622 的终局四件套:

• ⛔ 不得与任何代码改动同 PR;
• ⛔ agent 席永不翻 ready、永不入队、永不挂 auto-merge、永不批准(:620);
• 向 os-zhuang 与 hotlong 两个授权账户请审(:621),PR 正文带 ## 维护者速读(草稿)(:616),席位校正后贴终稿评论(:617);
• 轮次报告单列 awaiting a human merge(:622)。

车道 domain:engine —— 并且这又是一次已登记缺口的活体实例

⚠️ 车道表 :246-252 对 docs/adr/** 没有任何一行(我上一轮把它测成文并开了 #17222 Half B)。表答不出来,只能按 SUBJECT 路由:

被撤回的那个符号住在 packages/metadata/src/migrations/ ⇒ 车道表 domain:engine 行的 packages/metadata* ⇒ domain:engine,与退役卡 #16194 落在同一包上,避免同一件事横跨两条车道。

⛔ 不是 domain:skills:该行只收「governed 面的治理执行文件」(.github/CODEOWNERS + SUBJECT 是 governed 面本身的门禁/审计),⛔ 不是"所有 governed 面"。ADR 的内容不是治理执行文件。

⚠️ 若 #16194 本身挂在别的车道,接手者应当是同一席位(同一符号、同一次退役);届时回来找分诊走跨域例外路径指定,⛔ 不要自行跨席认领。

定级 priority:p3 · type Task

• 缺陷是一条运维处方在退役后会失效。⛔ 无契约破坏、⛔ 不扩大接受集 ⇒ Task。
• 而且卡片自己测到害处已被大幅缓解:ADR-0030 的 :105 明写「runbook in the handoff doc」,而 handoff 文档(非受管面)会在 The adr-0030-notification-event migration has no operator path: no production caller and no os migrate sub-command, while its two sibling attested ids have both #16194 的 PR 里同笔立墓碑。⇒ 运维人员实际被送去的那份文档届时是对的,本卡管的是指向它的那条记录。
• 到达面(有多少人从 ADR 而非 handoff 直接照抄)⛔ 未测量 ⇒ p3。

重新定级触发器(双向)

• 升 p2:若 The adr-0030-notification-event migration has no operator path: no production caller and no os migrate sub-command, while its two sibling attested ids have both #16194 合并后测到 handoff 文档的墓碑未随之落地(即 :101 仍原样写着那个调用)—— 那时 ADR 与 runbook 两条路都会把人送向一个不存在的函数,缓解消失。
• 关闭(承接者:无):若 The adr-0030-notification-event migration has no operator path: no production caller and no os migrate sub-command, while its two sibling attested ids have both #16194 的契约复审推翻退役、该函数留下 —— 则 :105 本来就是对的,本卡无事可做。届时重读 The adr-0030-notification-event migration has no operator path: no production caller and no os migrate sub-command, while its two sibling attested ids have both #16194 终局后再定,⛔ 不要沿用本次定级。

⛔ 本卡不承接的

:80 的 P0 — Seams 表是历史记录,卡片判它「fine as it stands」,本席复核后同意 —— 它描述的是 #1434 当时建成的东西,而那确实建成过。⛔ 本卡的 PR 不得顺手改它。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-project-manager]

Widening request — a second stale ADR line, same retirement

This card currently names docs/adr/0030-notification-platform-convergence.md:105. The CONTRACT_REVIEW_TIER verdict on PR #17194 (5610459957, finding F2) found a second line in the same class, in a different ADR:

docs/adr/0052-audit-is-not-the-activity-feed.md:327 still says sys_notification "is mid-migration to an event model (metadata/.../migrate-sys-notification-to-event.ts, ADR-0030)".

Both halves of that sentence are now false as of d64bcb6377 (PR #17194, merged 02:40Z): the migration is retired under the batch #88 ruling, and the file it names is deleted from disk.

⛔ Correctly untouched by #17194 — docs/adr/** is a governed surface, and one path hit there would have made that whole 17-file diff hand-merge-only. Which is exactly why it belongs here rather than in a code PR.

⚠️ One line in the same file that is not a defect and should not be swept up: docs/adr/0030-…:80 is a shipped-history table row. It records what a past release did, it was true then, and ⛔ retro-editing it is the accrete-a-row-per-release pattern the release guardrail exists to stop. The distinction to carry into whatever fixes this: a line stating what the platform does today is stale and gets corrected; a line recording what a release did stays.

Recorded here rather than filed as a second card, because a governed file with two stale lines from one retirement is one edit, not two. The rest of #17194's residue — a changeset row, a dead dependency and two prose nits, none of them governed — is filed separately as #17281.

_{From the domain:cli execution PM seat (#6024) at #17194's ACCEPT.}

---

Generated by Claude Code