fix(runtime): consume the caller-scope load verdict at the flow and script action doors

.changeset/action-door-record-load-verdict-consumed.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/runtime": patch
+---
+
+An action whose caller-scope record load was DENIED is now refused at every action door, not at one of the three.
+
+`loadActionSubjectRecord` computes one verdict — `recordLoadDenied` — for every door, and exactly one door consumed it as a refusal: the declarative update. The flow door and the script/body door spread the same verdict into the context as a field and proceeded. So MCP `run_action` on a `type: 'flow'` action answered `ok: true` and started a persisted run for a `recordId` the caller cannot read — and, identically, for an id that names nothing at all — while `get_record` answered "not found" and `update_record` answered "no access" for that same id in the same session. Nothing in the response told the calling agent the row had not been delivered.
+
+Both remaining doors now consume the verdict, on both surfaces (the REST `/actions` route and the MCP `run_action` bridge), through one shared refusal:
+
+- **What is refused.** A row-scoped invocation whose caller-scope load was attempted and did not deliver the row. The refusal lands before the automation run is created and before a trusted, RLS/FLS-bypassing action body is entered — not after, which would answer an error with the run already persisted.
+- **The envelope is the shared not-found one** — `RECORD_NOT_FOUND`, 404, the same `recordNotFoundError` the read path and the declarative door already answer. Not a 403 and not a new "denied" code: the read path collapses "filtered out by row-level security" and "this id names nothing" on purpose, so answering the two differently would make this door disclose existence where every other door declines to.
+- **Record-less and new-record actions are unchanged.** The verdict can only be `true` when a load was actually attempted — a `recordId` was supplied and the action key is not object-less — so an object-less ("global") action and an invocation with no `recordId` never reach the refusal, and both still receive the `recordId` stamp on `ctx.record` exactly as before. The predicate is the load's own verdict, deliberately not the `locations`-derived `requiresRecord` of an action listing, which an author may omit entirely.
+
+`AutomationContext.recordLoadDenied` and the handler-side `ctx.recordLoadDenied` are untouched and still populated by the same producer; an author guard written against either keeps working. What changed is that the platform no longer depends on that guard being written.

packages/runtime/src/action-body-identity.test.ts

@@ -59,7 +59,13 @@ function makeSharingEngine(extra: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
         },
         async find(object: string, options?: any) {
             gate('find', object, options?.context);
-            return [];
+            // [#16370] The by-id pre-load has to be ANSWERED: an action door now
+            // refuses a row-scoped invocation whose caller-scope subject load did
+            // not deliver the row, so a rig that answered every read with `[]`
+            // would collect a 404 before the handler this file is about is ever
+            // built. Every other read still reads empty — the WRITES above are
+            // this file's subject, and they are untouched.
+            return options?.where?.id ? [{ id: options.where.id }] : [];
         },
         async count(object: string, options?: any) {
             gate('count', object, options?.context);

packages/runtime/src/action-ctx-user-shape.test.ts

@@ -102,6 +102,22 @@ async function dispatchRest(ec: any, ql: any, context?: HttpProtocolContext) {
     return { response: res.response, actionCtx: ql.executeAction.mock.calls[0]?.[2] };
 }
 
+/**
+ * REST — the same action with NO `recordId`, so no subject load is attempted.
+ * [#16370] The row-scoped door refuses a load that did not deliver, so a case
+ * whose subject is something OTHER than the load reaches the handler here.
+ */
+async function dispatchRestNoRecord(ec: any, ql: any, context?: HttpProtocolContext) {
+    const kernel: any = {
+        context: { getService: (n: string) => (n === 'objectql' || n === 'data' ? ql : null) },
+    };
+    const ctx = context ?? ({ request: {}, environmentId: 'platform', executionContext: ec } as any);
+    const res: any = await new HttpDispatcher(kernel).handleActions(
+        '/crm_case/close_case', 'POST', {}, ctx,
+    );
+    return { response: res.response, actionCtx: ql.executeAction.mock.calls[0]?.[2] };
+}
+
 /** MCP — `run_action`. Returns the body ctx. */
 async function dispatchMcp(ec: any, ql: any) {
     const deps: any = { resolveService: async () => null, getObjectQL: async () => ql };
@@ -247,14 +263,30 @@ describe('#5372 — the FAILURE MODE: an unresolvable name is quiet', () => {
     it('an engine with no `find` at all does not break the dispatch', async () => {
         const ql = makeQl(DEV_ADMIN);
         delete (ql as any).find;
-        // The record pre-load needs `find` too, so this also proves the name
-        // resolution is not what turns a degraded engine into a 500.
-        const { response, actionCtx } = await dispatchRest(makeEc(), ql);
+        // No `recordId`, so no subject load is attempted and the ONE degraded
+        // read left is the name resolution — which is this case's subject: an
+        // unresolvable name falls back to the id and the action still runs.
+        const { response, actionCtx } = await dispatchRestNoRecord(makeEc(), ql);
 
         expect(response.status).toBe(200);
         expect(actionCtx.user.name).toBe('usr_admin');
     });
 
+    it('[#16370] …and a ROW-SCOPED call on that engine fails CLOSED, not with a 500', async () => {
+        const ql = makeQl(DEV_ADMIN);
+        delete (ql as any).find;
+        // The subject pre-load needs `find` too, so on a degraded engine it
+        // cannot deliver the row. Since #16370 the door consumes that verdict:
+        // the refusal is the shared not-found envelope, ⛔ never a 500 and ⛔
+        // never a dispatch onto a row nobody read. The case above is the firing
+        // control that says this 404 is the LOAD's, not the name resolution's.
+        const { response } = await dispatchRest(makeEc(), ql);
+
+        expect(response.status).toBe(404);
+        expect(response.body.error.code).toBe('RECORD_NOT_FOUND');
+        expect(ql.executeAction).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+    });
+
     it('the read is system-elevated — resolving WHO the caller is cannot depend on their own grants', async () => {
         const ql = makeQl(DEV_ADMIN);
         await dispatchRest(makeEc(), ql);