@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/lint": patch
+---
+
+`translation-target-unknown` no longer reports the locale keys a package ships for an object a SIBLING package of the same artifact declares — the OBJECT rung's universe read `stack.objects` alone, while this rule's own docblock already declared the wider `artifactProvidedObjectNames` reach (#19064).
+
+`os build` runs the rule table per PACKAGE as well as over the union (`compile.ts` step 3b-ii): each package body is judged as its own stack with the artifact's `packages[]` beside it as resolution context (`packageBodyAsStack`, #16611). On that leg `stack.objects` holds ONE package's objects, so a bundle key naming a sibling's object resolved against nothing. Measured on the probe stack (`examples/app-multi-package`'s shape — `core` owns `crm_account`, `orders` reads it and here also translates it), the key produced one `error` at `translations[0]["zh-CN"].objects.crm_account`:
+
+> Translations are keyed to "crm_account", which no object in this stack defines. The resolver looks up keys derived from the metadata, so this whole subtree is dead weight — every label it carries renders untranslated.
+>
+> *Rename the key to the object it was written for, drop it, or ignore this if the object is contributed by another installed package. Defined objects: crm_order.*
+
+That is the remedy that deletes a translation the runtime resolves, at `error`, so the run FAILED on it — and it is byte-identical, but for the name, to the finding a genuine typo produces. ADR-0130 makes the release artifact the co-ownership boundary, so the miss is the RUN's blind spot and not the author's mistake.
+
+**The precedent is followed, not re-decided.** `validateObjectReferences` closed this exact shape on this exact carrier for object NAMES (#16611 — `artifactProvidedObjectNames` folded into its `resolvable` set). What differs here is the RETURN, and two pins hold it: this rule's universe is keyed by FACTS, not names, so the sibling's fields, options, views, sections and rules are folded WITH the name through the same collector the declaration loop uses. A name-only fold would resolve the object key and then judge the owner's own field keys against an empty fact set — the same false positive one level up — and a wholesale subtree skip (rung 2b's answer, for a target whose declaration is genuinely invisible) would leave the per-package leg unable to see a typo the union leg reports.
+
+**The control, which is what makes this a narrowing and not a hole.** Widening a universe trades a false positive for a blind spot unless every genuine orphan still reports, so both directions are pinned side by side: the same package judged ALONE still errors (the context is what does the work); a name no entry of the artifact declares is still an `error` with its rule id, and the remedy now enumerates what the artifact provides; a field the sibling does not declare is still an `error` under the now-resolved object; one bundle carrying both a sibling key and a typo reports exactly the typo; an entry with no readable body (a segment reference) makes nothing addressable; and the single-`defineStack` shape is untouched, because `objects` is a stack collection with no `stack.manifest` form to read.
+
+No schema moved, no export moved, and no accept set moved: this is a lint rule's false-positive set narrowing. `Clause-②: no`
@@ -1223,6 +1223,199 @@ describe('validateTranslationReferences — an app a package contributes into wi
   });
 });
 
+/**
+ * ⭐ #19064 — the OBJECT rung of the same rule, on the same per-package leg.
+ *
+ * `os build` judges each package body as its own stack
+ * (`packageBodyAsStack(body, entries)`, `compile.ts` step 3b-ii), where the
+ * universe's object collection holds what THIS package declares and nothing
+ * else. So a package that translates an object a SIBLING package of the same
+ * artifact declares had its object key reported `translation-target-unknown`
+ * at `error` — "which no object in this stack defines", remedy "Rename the key
+ * to the object it was written for, drop it" — in the same words a genuine
+ * typo gets, and the run FAILS on it.
+ *
+ * ⛔ Not a new resolution-context decision. `validateObjectReferences` took it
+ * on this exact carrier for object NAMES (#16611 — `artifactProvidedObjectNames`
+ * folded into its `resolvable` set), ADR-0130 makes the release artifact the
+ * co-ownership boundary, and this rule's own docblock already declared the same
+ * reach for this rung while the rung read `stack.objects` alone.
+ *
+ * What differs from the precedent is the RETURN, and two cases below are what
+ * pin it: this universe is keyed by FACTS, not names, so the sibling's fields,
+ * options, views, sections and rules are folded WITH the name. A name-only fold
+ * would resolve the object key and then judge the owner's own field keys
+ * against an empty fact set — the trap `objectExtensionsByTarget` records one
+ * level up — and a wholesale subtree SKIP (rung 2b's answer, for a target whose
+ * declaration is genuinely invisible from here) would leave this leg unable to
+ * see a typo the union leg reports.
+ */
+describe('validateTranslationReferences — an object a SIBLING package of the artifact declares (#19064)', () => {
+  /**
+   * `examples/app-multi-package`'s shape — the same corpus
+   * `validateObjectReferences`' #16611 block models: `core` owns `crm_account`
+   * and `orders` reads it, and here `orders` also TRANSLATES it.
+   */
+  const CORE_BODY = {
+    id: 'com.example.multi.core',
+    objects: [
+      {
+        name: 'crm_account',
+        label: 'Account',
+        fields: {
+          name: { type: 'text', label: 'Name' },
+          industry: { type: 'select', label: 'Industry', options: [{ value: 'tech', label: 'Tech' }] },
+        },
+        validations: [
+          {
+            name: 'industry_required',
+            type: 'cross_field',
+            message: 'An industry is required',
+            condition: 'record.industry != null',
+            fields: ['industry'],
+          },
+        ],
+      },
+    ],
+  };
+  const ordersBody = (bundleObjects: Record<string, unknown>) => ({
+    id: 'com.example.multi.orders',
+    objects: [{ name: 'crm_order', fields: { number: { type: 'text' } } }],
+    translations: [{ 'zh-CN': { objects: bundleObjects } }],
+  });
+  /** `packageBodyAsStack(body, entries)` — the body IS its own manifest. */
+  const asPerPackageLeg = (body: Record<string, unknown>, entries: unknown[]) => ({
+    ...body,
+    manifest: body,
+    packages: entries,
+  });
+  const perPackageLeg = (bundleObjects: Record<string, unknown>) => {
+    const body = ordersBody(bundleObjects);
+    return validateTranslationReferences(asPerPackageLeg(body, [{ manifest: body }, { manifest: CORE_BODY }]));
+  };
+
+  /**
+   * ⭐ The reproduction, kept as the control: judged with its own entry alone,
+   * the very same bundle still errors. Without this leg "no findings" above is
+   * indistinguishable from the rung having gone quiet.
+   */
+  it('CONTROL — the same package judged ALONE still errors, so the context is what does the work', () => {
+    const body = ordersBody({ crm_account: { label: '客户' } });
+    const findings = validateTranslationReferences(asPerPackageLeg(body, [{ manifest: body }]));
+    expect(findings).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(findings[0]).toMatchObject({
+      rule: TRANSLATION_TARGET_UNKNOWN,
+      severity: 'error',
+      path: 'translations[0]["zh-CN"].objects.crm_account',
+    });
+  });
+
+  it('accepts the object key when a sibling package of the same artifact declares it', () => {
+    expect(perPackageLeg({ crm_account: { label: '客户' } })).toEqual([]);
+  });
+
+  it("judges the subtree against the SIBLING's declaration — its field, option and rule keys resolve", () => {
+    expect(
+      perPackageLeg({
+        crm_account: {
+          label: '客户',
+          fields: { industry: { label: '行业', options: { tech: '科技' } } },
+          _validations: { industry_required: { message: '行业为必填' } },
+        },
+      }),
+    ).toEqual([]);
+  });
+
+  /**
+   * ⭐ The false-NEGATIVE control. Widening a universe trades a false positive
+   * for a blind spot unless every genuine orphan still reports, so a name no
+   * entry of the artifact declares stays an `error` with its rule id intact.
+   */
+  it('NON-DEGENERACY — a name NO package of the artifact declares still errors', () => {
+    const findings = perPackageLeg({ zzz_not_an_object: { label: '没了' } });
+    expect(findings).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(findings[0]).toMatchObject({
+      rule: TRANSLATION_TARGET_UNKNOWN,
+      severity: 'error',
+      path: 'translations[0]["zh-CN"].objects.zzz_not_an_object',
+    });
+    // The remedy enumerates what the ARTIFACT provides, not this package's own
+    // objects alone — the same reading `validateObjectReferences` pins for the
+    // same widening, and the evidence the fold reached this run at all.
+    expect(findings[0].hint).toContain('Defined objects: crm_account, crm_order.');
+  });
+
+  /** ⭐ The second false-negative control, one rung down: the subtree stays judged. */
+  it('NON-DEGENERACY — a field the sibling does not declare is still an `error` under the resolved object', () => {
+    const findings = perPackageLeg({ crm_account: { fields: { zzz_gone: { label: '没了' } } } });
+    expect(findings).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(findings[0]).toMatchObject({
+      rule: TRANSLATION_TARGET_UNKNOWN,
+      severity: 'error',
+      path: 'translations[0]["zh-CN"].objects.crm_account.fields.zzz_gone',
+    });
+    expect(findings[0].hint).toContain('Declared fields: industry, name.');
+  });
+
+  it('separates the two directions on ONE bundle — the sibling key is silent, the typo is not', () => {
+    const findings = perPackageLeg({
+      crm_account: { fields: { industry: { label: '行业' }, zzz_gone: { label: '没了' } } },
+      zzz_not_an_object: { label: '没了' },
+    });
+    expect(findings.map((f) => f.path)).toEqual([
+      'translations[0]["zh-CN"].objects.crm_account.fields.zzz_gone',
+      'translations[0]["zh-CN"].objects.zzz_not_an_object',
+    ]);
+  });
+
+  /**
+   * ⛔ Only the ADR-0130 D4 entry shape is read. A segment reference carries no
+   * manifest content, and inventing a name for one would be the one mistake
+   * this context must not make — a name in here SILENCES the ladder.
+   */
+  it('an entry with no readable body makes nothing addressable', () => {
+    const body = ordersBody({ crm_account: { label: '客户' } });
+    const findings = validateTranslationReferences(
+      asPerPackageLeg(body, [{ manifest: body }, { ref: 'com.example.multi.core@1.0.0', integrity: 'sha512-zzz' }]),
+    );
+    expect(findings).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(findings[0].path).toBe('translations[0]["zh-CN"].objects.crm_account');
+  });
+
+  /**
+   * Which layer's `options` a merged field ends up carrying is the registry's
+   * precedence question, and `checkOptionKeys` is the only consumer of the
+   * stored definition here — so the declaration this leg is JUDGING keeps the
+   * slot, exactly as the `objectExtensions` fold decided one collection over.
+   */
+  it("keeps the stack's OWN declaration when a sibling declares the same object name", () => {
+    const body = {
+      id: 'com.example.multi.orders',
+      objects: [{ name: 'crm_account', fields: { industry: { type: 'select', options: [{ value: 'retail' }] } } }],
+      translations: [
+        { 'zh-CN': { objects: { crm_account: { fields: { industry: { options: { retail: '零售' } } } } } } },
+      ],
+    };
+    expect(
+      validateTranslationReferences(asPerPackageLeg(body, [{ manifest: body }, { manifest: CORE_BODY }])),
+    ).toEqual([]);
+  });
+
+  /**
+   * The single-`defineStack` shape is untouched: `objects` is a STACK
+   * collection, not a manifest key, so there is no `stack.manifest.objects`
+   * form to read and a bundle keyed to a name nothing declares still errors.
+   */
+  it('leaves the single-stack shape alone — no `packages[]`, no widening', () => {
+    const findings = validateTranslationReferences({
+      objects: [{ name: 'crm_order', fields: { number: { type: 'text' } } }],
+      translations: [{ 'zh-CN': { objects: { crm_account: { label: '客户' } } } }],
+    });
+    expect(findings).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(findings[0].path).toBe('translations[0]["zh-CN"].objects.crm_account');
+  });
+});
+
 describe('validateTranslationReferences — flows (#7646 / #11287)', () => {
   /**
    * One stack, shared by every case below — the clean run and the three