Zero inline comments, three findings in the review's suppressed block — the
second round where the inline count alone would have ended the cycle. All three
are places where my own words did not match the code.
The Frontmatter section claimed to show "the raw YAML the server served, not a
re-serialised object". It did not: `ContentViewer`'s plain-text branch
pretty-prints anything that parses as JSON, and every JSON mapping is also valid
YAML — so `{"name":"a"}` came back re-serialised beneath a comment promising
verbatim bytes. For a conformance tool that is the one thing it must not do. It
now renders through `CodeHighlight` directly.
The green alert was titled "Conforms". Consolidating every verdict into this one
section means it can sit directly above a red digest mismatch, where an
unqualified "Conforms" contradicts the result on screen — the static checks
passing says nothing about the bytes. Retitled "No structural issues", which is
what it actually summarises. The contradiction was created by the consolidation
and the title was never revisited.
And the PR description said the shield stays on both integrity-checking
controls, while the per-row Verify rendered text only. The claim was right and
the code was not, so the row button now carries it too.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01R4441JdNLZerCVM7mDDSfB
Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
10c8f5deb3