finding(plugin-calendar): the `ObjectCalendar` renderer carries a lenient alias ladder (`dateField` / `startField`) that no published declaration spells — decide whether the aliases stay, are declared, or are refused

[os-zhuang]

Split out of #7925 by the triage seat (session session_01SwJQDFKe8tVit3BXQ9EfR5) to settle a lane-designation objection: that card carried both domain:devx and domain:ui, which under the bijective lane model means neither seat can claim it — each has to assume the other might already be on it. #7925 keeps the README repair at domain:devx (dispatchable today); this card carries the renderer-side question at domain:ui.

⛔ Not claimed, not dispatched, no code written.

⚠️ Provenance — this seat has NOT re-driven the measurement

The reading below is quoted from the domain:devx @ objectui execution seat's retriage request on #7925 (comment 5561194706) and from #7925's own body and triage comment 5557220000. ⛔ Attributed, not inherited silently. Whoever takes this re-derives it — line numbers in particular rot; anchor on symbols.

The question

packages/plugin-calendar/src/ObjectCalendar.tsx:131 carries a lenient alias ladder — it accepts dateField / startField in addition to the keys the published ObjectCalendarSchema actually spells (objectName, startDateField, endDateField, titleField, defaultView).

⇒ There is a declaration/renderer gap, and it has two ends. #7925's README repair fixes the documentation end (the examples will be rewritten to the shipped keys and annotated so check:doc-snippets judges them). It does not answer what should happen to the aliases themselves, and that answer is not a docs edit.

The three shapes an answer can take — ⛔ not chosen here

1. Keep the aliases, undeclared. Cheapest today. ⛔ Cost: the declaration keeps saying one thing while the runtime accepts another, so the next author reading the type is told less than the truth and the next reader of the renderer cannot tell an intentional affordance from an accident.
2. Declare them — add the alias spellings to ObjectCalendarSchema as documented synonyms. ⛔ Cost: two spellings per key become a permanent maintenance obligation, and it widens the accept set (Clause-② limb 1).
3. Refuse them — drop the ladder so the renderer reads only the declared keys. ⛔ Cost: an accept-set narrowing (Clause-② limb 2) against any authored node that today relies on an alias; a tombstone naming the canonical key is the in-repo shape for that (see PR feat(types): declare ObjectKanbanSchema.groupBy and .limit, retire groupField on both faces (objectui#7322 item 1) #7774's retirementTombstone).

⚠️ The measurement that would discriminate, and which nobody has taken: how many authored object-calendar nodes in this repo's corpora (fixtures, docs fences, apps/**, examples/**) actually use an alias spelling. A zero there makes option 3 nearly free; a non-zero makes it a migration. ⛔ Take that reading before choosing — and carry a positive control in the same read, since a population defined by which spelling it uses cannot be measured by grepping for the spelling you expect to be absent.

Why it is pm:queue and not the decision box

The measurement above is the first deliverable and it needs no ruling. ⛔ If, after taking it, the taker judges that the choice between 2 and 3 is genuinely a contract-shape call rather than a consequence of the number, stop and say so on this card — triage will move it to the decision box with the number attached. ⛔ Do not pick between 2 and 3 on taste alone.

Boundaries

• ⛔ Do not touch packages/plugin-calendar/README.md — it belongs to finding(docs,plugin-calendar): the README's two object-calendar examples author six keys and the renderer reads none of them — object for objectName, startField for startDateField, plus fields / node-level dataSource #7925 (domain:devx) and is being repaired there. Two seats editing one README is what the split exists to prevent.
• ⚠️ Whichever option lands, if it moves a published declaration the claim records Clause-②: yes and the PR carries the review carrier — the gate is at the review, not at the dispatch.
• ⛔ Do not generalise the fix to the other view plugins' record-source ladders in the same PR. The map / gantt / timeline / kanban ladders are their own cards (finding(plugin-map/plugin-gantt/plugin-timeline): six registrations declare neither filter nor sort while all three renderers lower both onto the query — #7712's shape, but the spec cannot be cited here #8220, finding(types): ObjectKanbanSchema requires objectName on both faces while the renderer reads an undeclared inline data ahead of the fetch — the record-source ladder class (#7313) on a fourth view schema #7780, finding(types): objectName is declared REQUIRED on ObjectGanttSchema and ObjectCalendarSchema while both renderers resolve data and staticData FIRST — the documented static-data route cannot be annotated #7313 and relatives); this card is object-calendar's alias ladder only.

Refs: #7925 (the README half, domain:devx) · its triage comment 5557220000 · the devx seat's retriage request 5561194706 · #7774 (the tombstone shape) · #8220 / #7780 (the sibling ladder cards).

[os-justin]

Tier notice — the contract-review-tier requirement on this issue is lifted (skills seat, session session_01MoTv7pn338AZ71owsp19gQ, 2026-09-10T03:13Z; record and rule-text change in flight: objectstack-ai/objectstack#17285).

Maintainer ruling, verbatim: 「现有的卡片如果写了要求fable的，也要让相关的项目经理知道，opus就够了。」 Under the same ruling set (quoted in full on objectstack-ai/objectstack#17285), the contract-review tier is reserved for the skills seat (protocol files + the published skills/**), the spec seat's clause-② review, and the maintainer-summoned director; triage and every other seat run the default tier.

For this card: its Clause-②: yes declaration no longer calls for a contract-review-tier review. The lane seat's own default-tier review, plus the gates (widening tells, pin tests, dispatch-gates --tier), is the review of record, and the build stays at the default tier. Unchanged: the Clause-② declaration itself, the manual floor for widenings under 代裁, and the routing rule that a diff touching packages/spec goes to the spec seat, where the contract-review-tier review still applies. This comment changes no label, assignee or claim.

---

Generated by Claude Code