Draft: revert #851 existing-review revision rebase

[brokemac79]

Draft reversal for #851

This is the exact inverse of #851, prepared as a draft-only fallback.

It deliberately targets #851's branch rather than main, so it cannot become a production rollback until #851 has merged and a maintainer explicitly retargets and reviews it.

Do not merge

This reversal restores the existing-item revision behavior that can leave a re-review below the durable publication head. Keep it as rollback material only; it needs a separate production diagnosis and fresh review before any merge decision.

Related: #851, #849, #836, CSW-059 / openclaw/openclaw#111368.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed July 25, 2026, 4:26 AM ET / 08:26 UTC.

ClawSweeper review

What this changes

The branch applies and then exactly reverts the existing exact-review revision rebasing from #851, leaving no net code, test, or workflow change against current main.

Merge readiness

⛔ Blocked until real behavior proof is added - 5 items remain

Close this PR: GitHub reports no changed files against the current base branch.

Priority: P3
Reviewed head: e670d73c3305ccb8ec8e76dd6771f6e908ec4883
Owner decision: Required. See Decision needed.

Review scores

Measure	Result	What it means
Overall readiness	🧂 unranked krab (1/6)	This is intentionally non-mergeable, zero-diff rollback material without runtime proof for any future production use.
Proof confidence	🧂 unranked krab (1/6)	Needs real behavior proof before merge: No after-change real behavior proof is attached; before any future production rollback, provide redacted end-to-end lifecycle output showing publication and final verdict delivery, then update the PR body for re-review.
Patch quality	🦪 silver shellfish (2/6)	This is intentionally non-mergeable, zero-diff rollback material without runtime proof for any future production use.

Verification

Check	Result	Evidence
Real behavior	Needs proof	Needs real behavior proof before merge: No after-change real behavior proof is attached; before any future production rollback, provide redacted end-to-end lifecycle output showing publication and final verdict delivery, then update the PR body for re-review.
Evidence reviewed	1 item	live no-diff PR: GitHub reports changed_files: 0 for this open PR, so there is no remaining branch diff to merge.
Findings	None	None.
Security	None	None.

How this fits together

Exact-review processing turns a GitHub item into a queued review artifact and later publishes its verdict through a durable publication queue. Revision numbers prevent an older review cycle from overwriting a newer publication, and the revised behavior keeps queued re-reviews above that durable watermark.

flowchart LR
  A[GitHub source event] --> B[Exact-review queue]
  B --> C[Revision selection]
  C --> D[Durable publication head]
  D --> E[Publication queue]
  E --> F[Verdict comment delivery]

Loading

Decision needed

Question	Recommendation
Should this zero-diff draft rollback artifact be retained temporarily for incident response, or closed now that the forward fix is merged on main?	Close the no-op draft: Close it as non-mergeable rollback material and require any future rollback to be rebuilt against the then-current main after a production diagnosis.

Why: The branch is intentionally non-production material, and deciding whether rollback preparedness outweighs retaining a confusing no-op draft is an operational ownership choice rather than a mechanical code repair.

Before merge

• Add real behavior proof - Needs real behavior proof before merge: No after-change real behavior proof is attached; before any future production rollback, provide redacted end-to-end lifecycle output showing publication and final verdict delivery, then update the PR body for re-review.
• Resolve merge risk (P1) - If this draft is retargeted or reconstructed as a production rollback, existing re-reviews can again publish below the durable watermark and lose their final verdict delivery; the draft provides no after-change lifecycle proof for that tradeoff.
• Improve patch quality - If the rollback is ever proposed for production, attach redacted real lifecycle output proving the changed publication path and explain the incident diagnosis.
• Improve patch quality - Otherwise, close the draft rather than retaining a no-op branch as a standing merge candidate.

Agent review details

Security

None.

Review metrics

Metric	Value	Why it matters
Net production diff	0 added, 0 removed, 0 files affected	The branch currently cannot alter main; it is rollback reference material rather than a landing candidate.

Root-cause cluster

Relationship: adjacent_distinct
Canonical: #851
Summary: This draft is temporary rollback material for the same exact-review publication-revision behavior addressed by the merged forward fix, rather than an independent remaining defect.

Members:

• canonical: Fix stale existing exact-review publication revisions #851 - Merged on current main and implements the forward revision rebasing that this draft would undo.
• same_root_cause: fix(publication): ratchet new review revisions above the publication head #836 - Established the earlier new-item publication-head ratchet for the same durable revision-watermark subsystem.
• partial_overlap: Fix stale exact-review publication retry loop #849 - Addresses stale publication acknowledgement handling in the same publisher path, but not this rollback decision.

Proposal only: this assessment does not dispatch repair, suppress jobs, mutate sibling items, close, or merge anything.

Merge-risk options

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Close this PR: GitHub reports no changed files against the current base branch, so the branch is already empty or superseded by main.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Technical review

Best possible solution:

Close this PR: GitHub reports no changed files against the current base branch, so the branch is already empty or superseded by main.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable. This PR does not report an independent current-main failure; it is an intentionally non-mergeable inverse of a merged delivery fix.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No. Restoring local-only revision increments would reintroduce the below-watermark delivery failure that the merged forward fix addresses; any real rollback needs a newly established incident-specific rationale.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 01e6976cbe6f.

Labels

Label changes:

• add P3: This is a draft operational cleanup decision with no current production diff or demonstrated user-facing regression.
• add rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab and patch quality is 🦪 silver shellfish.
• add status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: No after-change real behavior proof is attached; before any future production rollback, provide redacted end-to-end lifecycle output showing publication and final verdict delivery, then update the PR body for re-review.

Label justifications:

• P3: This is a draft operational cleanup decision with no current production diff or demonstrated user-facing regression.
• rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab and patch quality is 🦪 silver shellfish.
• status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: No after-change real behavior proof is attached; before any future production rollback, provide redacted end-to-end lifecycle output showing publication and final verdict delivery, then update the PR body for re-review.

Evidence

What I checked:

• live no-diff PR: GitHub reports changed_files: 0 for this open PR, so there is no remaining branch diff to merge.

Likely related people:

• brokemac79: Authored the merged current-main revision-rebasing fix and the companion rollback draft, so they have direct history with the exact-review publication-revision path. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: f74a5485e2dc, 01e6976cbe6f; files: dashboard/exact-review-queue.ts, test/dashboard-worker.test.ts)
• yetval: Authored the earlier merged publication-head ratchet work that established the durable revision-watermark behavior this draft would revisit. (role: feature introducer; confidence: medium; commits: c875ba748e2f; files: dashboard/exact-review-queue.ts, .github/workflows/sweep.yml, test/exact-review-publication-batches.test.ts)

Rating scale

Score	Internal tier	Crab rank	Meaning
6/6	S	🦀 challenger crab	Exceptional readiness
5/6	A	🦞 diamond lobster	Very strong readiness
4/6	B	🐚 platinum hermit	Good normal PR; ordinary maintainer review
3/6	C	🦐 gold shrimp	Useful, but confidence is limited
2/6	D	🦪 silver shellfish	Proof or implementation needs work
1/6	F	🧂 unranked krab	Not merge-ready
N/A	NA	🌊 off-meta tidepool	Rating does not apply

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality.
Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

Workflow

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

History

Review history (1 earlier review cycle)

• reviewed 2026-07-25T07:44:11.482Z sha e670d73 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P1] Do not restore local-only revision increments

[steipete]

Thanks @brokemac79 for preparing this contingency. This PR now has zero diff against main, so there is no rollback change to review or land. We are closing the no-op draft; please open a fresh revert PR against the then-current main only if an actual production incident demonstrates that a rollback is needed.