@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+'@objectstack/plugin-sharing': patch
+---
+
+fix(plugin-sharing): a record-share grant refused for a non-user recipient names the sharing-rule recipient that delivers it, so a `group` caller is sent to `team`
+
+Clause-②: no
+
+**What was wrong.** `ISharingService.grant` writes a record share for a `user` only (ADR-0078), and refuses `group`, `position` and `unit_and_subordinates` with one sentence. FROM: "VALIDATION_FAILED: recipientType must be 'user' (received "group") — group/position recipients are delivered via sharing rules (ADR-0111 D7)". The sharing-rule vocabulary has no `group` recipient: a rule spells it `team`, since the ADR-0090 D3 rename. A caller or an AI that followed the remedy wrote a rule naming `group`, which neither the authoring `sharedWith.type` enum nor the `sys_sharing_rule.recipient_type` select offers. A `unit_and_subordinates` caller read a sentence that did not name its value.
+
+**What changed.** Each declared value's remedy names its own rule recipient. TO:
+
+- `group`: "… — a group recipient is delivered via a sharing rule with recipient type 'team', its name since the ADR-0090 D3 rename (ADR-0111 D7)"
+- `position`: "… — a position recipient is delivered via a sharing rule with recipient type 'position' (ADR-0111 D7)"
+- `unit_and_subordinates`: "… — a unit_and_subordinates recipient is delivered via a sharing rule with recipient type 'unit_and_subordinates' (ADR-0111 D7)"
+
+A value no record share declares (an untyped REST body sending `team`, say) is told so, and is named no route: "… — "team" is not a record-share recipient type (ADR-0111 D7)".
+
+**Unchanged.** Which values `grant()` accepts (`user` only), the `VALIDATION_FAILED` code and its 400, the first clause of every refusal, the retired `guest` value's own prescription, and the record-share vocabulary. Nothing is written for a refused grant.
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ mask AND-ed with object CRUD, not a fourth `access_level`.
 ## Typical Errors
 
 - `FORBIDDEN` (403) — a write denied by the `canEdit` gate. Thrown by the sharing engine middleware; `canEdit` itself returns `false` rather than throwing.
-- `VALIDATION_FAILED` (400) — `grant`/`revoke` called without a required field (`object`, `recordId`, `recipientId`, or `shareId`), or `grant` with a non-`user` `recipientType` (only `user` rows are enforced by the gates; group/position recipients are delivered via sharing rules).
+- `VALIDATION_FAILED` (400) — `grant`/`revoke` called without a required field (`object`, `recordId`, `recipientId`, or `shareId`), or `grant` with a non-`user` `recipientType` (only `user` rows are enforced by the gates). The refusal names the sharing-rule recipient that delivers each declared value: `group` → `team` (a rule spells it `team` since the ADR-0090 D3 rename), `position` → `position`, `unit_and_subordinates` → `unit_and_subordinates`.
 - `PERMISSION_DENIED` (403) — the caller does not hold `canManageShares` on the record (ADR-0111 D1). On the sharing-**rule** surface (`ISharingRuleService`, declared in the same canonical source — `listRules` / `getRule` / `defineRule` / `deleteRule` / `evaluateRule`) the same code carries a second condition: the caller holds `manage_sharing` but their session resolves **no active organization**, and an org-scoped capability with no organization has no tenant whose rules it authorizes. System contexts and platform operators (`manage_platform_settings`, or the `platform_admin` position) are unaffected — see [Rule administration](/docs/permissions/sharing-rules).
 - `NOT_FOUND` (404) — the record is missing **or not visible to the caller** (indistinguishable by design), or a `revoke` share id does not exist / does not belong to the `scope` record.
 - `CONFLICT` (409) — `revoke` on a rule-materialised share (`source != 'manual'`); the next rule reconciliation would silently re-grant it. Deactivate or edit the sharing rule instead.
 
@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ import { assertEngineDeleteDispatch } from '@objectstack/objectql';
 import { SharingService, type SharingServiceOptions } from './sharing-service.js';
 import { buildSharingMiddleware } from './sharing-plugin.js';
 import { bootRequestContext } from './exec-context-seam.testkit.js';
+import { SysRecordShare } from './objects/sys-record-share.object.js';
+import { SysSharingRule } from './objects/sys-sharing-rule.object.js';
 
 // ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
 // In-memory fake engine
@@ -1111,8 +1113,8 @@ describe('[ADR-0111 D7] no inert grants', () => {
     // body) can still send it. The grant's one error channel is the message
     // prefix (`rest-server.ts`'s `respondSharingError` maps it to a 400); the
     // pin asserts that prefix, the prescription, and that nothing was written.
-    // A sharing rule cannot deliver a guest either, so the generic sentence
-    // ("delivered via sharing rules") would misdirect the caller.
+    // A sharing rule cannot deliver a guest either, so a remedy naming a rule
+    // route ("delivered via a sharing rule …") would misdirect the caller.
     const refusal = await svc.grant(
       { object: 'account', recordId: 'a1', recipientId: 'anyone', recipientType: 'guest' as never },
       { userId: 'alice' },
@@ -1122,10 +1124,82 @@ describe('[ADR-0111 D7] no inert grants', () => {
     expect(message.startsWith("VALIDATION_FAILED: recipientType 'guest' was removed (ADR-0138 D8)")).toBe(true);
     expect(message).toMatch(/guest access flows through the guest position and share links \(ADR-0090 D11\)/);
     expect(message).toMatch(/Expose the record through a public form or a share link instead\.$/);
-    expect(message).not.toMatch(/sharing rules/);
+    expect(message).not.toMatch(/sharing rule/);
     expect(engine._tables.sys_record_share ?? []).toHaveLength(0);
   });
 
+  describe('[ADR-0111 D7] the refusal names the sharing-rule recipient that delivers each non-user value', () => {
+    /** A select field's option values, in declared order. */
+    const selectValues = (field: unknown): unknown[] =>
+      ((field as { options?: unknown[] }).options ?? [])
+        .map((o) => (typeof o === 'object' && o !== null ? (o as { value: unknown }).value : o));
+
+    // The pin the guest case above sets for its own value, for every value the
+    // generic refusal answers. A rule spells `group` as `team` (the ADR-0090 D3
+    // rename, recorded by the ADR-0087 entry `sharing-rule-recipient-reconcile`);
+    // the other two keep their own name.
+    const RULE_ROUTES = {
+      group: 'team',
+      position: 'position',
+      unit_and_subordinates: 'unit_and_subordinates',
+    } as const;
+
+    const refusalFor = async (recipientType: string): Promise<string> => {
+      const refusal = await svc.grant(
+        { object: 'account', recordId: 'a1', recipientId: 'g1', recipientType: recipientType as never },
+        { userId: 'alice' },
+      ).then(() => null, (e: unknown) => e);
+      expect(refusal, `${recipientType} was granted`).toBeInstanceOf(Error);
+      return (refusal as Error).message;
+    };
+
+    it('covers exactly the non-user values a record-share row declares, and routes each to a rule recipient', () => {
+      // Read from both selects, so neither vocabulary moves without this table.
+      expect(Object.keys(RULE_ROUTES)).toEqual(
+        selectValues(SysRecordShare.fields.recipient_type).filter((v) => v !== 'user'),
+      );
+      const ruleRecipients = selectValues(SysSharingRule.fields.recipient_type);
+      for (const rule of Object.values(RULE_ROUTES)) expect(ruleRecipients).toContain(rule);
+      // The record-share spelling `group` is no rule recipient: naming it would
+      // send the caller to a route that does not exist.
+      expect(ruleRecipients).not.toContain('group');
+    });
+
+    for (const [recipientType, rule] of Object.entries(RULE_ROUTES)) {
+      it(`${recipientType} → a sharing rule with recipient type '${rule}'`, async () => {
+        const message = await refusalFor(recipientType);
+        expect(message.startsWith(
+          `VALIDATION_FAILED: recipientType must be 'user' (received "${recipientType}") — `
+          + `a ${recipientType} recipient is delivered via a sharing rule with recipient type '${rule}'`,
+        )).toBe(true);
+        expect(message).toMatch(/\(ADR-0111 D7\)$/);
+        expect(engine._tables.sys_record_share ?? []).toHaveLength(0);
+      });
+    }
+
+    it("group's remedy cites the rename and never names a `group` rule recipient", async () => {
+      const message = await refusalFor('group');
+      expect(message).toMatch(/recipient type 'team', its name since the ADR-0090 D3 rename \(ADR-0111 D7\)$/);
+      expect(message).not.toMatch(/recipient type 'group'/);
+      // The two values whose rule spelling is their own carry no rename clause.
+      for (const unchanged of ['position', 'unit_and_subordinates']) {
+        expect(await refusalFor(unchanged)).not.toMatch(/rename/);
+      }
+    });
+
+    it('a value no record share declares is told so, and is named no route', async () => {
+      // `team` is a RULE recipient an untyped caller (a REST body) may send here.
+      // It is no record-share value, so no route is invented for it.
+      const message = await refusalFor('team');
+      expect(message).toBe(
+        `VALIDATION_FAILED: recipientType must be 'user' (received "team") — `
+        + '"team" is not a record-share recipient type (ADR-0111 D7)',
+      );
+      expect(message).not.toMatch(/delivered via/);
+      expect(engine._tables.sys_record_share ?? []).toHaveLength(0);
+    });
+  });
+
   it('refuses a grant on a public object (no gate would ever consult it)', async () => {
     await expect(
       svc.grant({ object: 'whiteboard', recordId: 'w1', recipientId: 'bob' }, { userId: 'alice' }),
 
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ import type {
   ISharingService,
   IHierarchyScopeResolver,
   RecordShare,
+  RecordShareRecipientType,
   GrantShareInput,
   ShareAccessLevel,
   SharingWriteVerdict,
@@ -15,6 +16,7 @@ import {
   normalizeTenancyPosture,
   postureEnforcesWall,
   type ExplainDecision,
+  type ShareRecipientType,
   type TenancyPosture,
 } from '@objectstack/spec/security';
 // [#7136] Every enforcement method below takes the FULL `resolveAuthzContext`
@@ -101,6 +103,50 @@ function retiredRecipientTypeRefusal(value: unknown): string | undefined {
     : undefined;
 }
 
+/**
+ * [ADR-0111 D7] The sharing-rule recipient that delivers each declared
+ * non-`user` record-share value: the route {@link SharingService.grant} names
+ * when it refuses one. Only a `user` row is ever written (ADR-0078), so a
+ * caller who meant a set of people is sent to the sharing rule that expands
+ * that set into per-user rows, spelled the way a rule spells it.
+ *
+ * Typed against both vocabularies, so neither can move away from it unnoticed.
+ * The keys are every non-`user` `RecordShareRecipientType` member: a member
+ * added there fails to compile here until it names its route. Each value is an
+ * authorable `ShareRecipientType` (`spec/security`), the list the
+ * `sys_sharing_rule.recipient_type` select is held equal to, so the refusal can
+ * never name a recipient a rule cannot be written with (the reserved `queue`
+ * included). A rule spells `group` as `team`: the ADR-0090 D3 rename, recorded
+ * by the ADR-0087 entry `sharing-rule-recipient-reconcile`.
+ */
+const RULE_ROUTE_BY_RECORD_SHARE_RECIPIENT: Readonly<Record<
+  Exclude<RecordShareRecipientType, 'user'>,
+  { readonly recipientType: ShareRecipientType; readonly renamedBy?: string }
+>> = {
+  group: { recipientType: 'team', renamedBy: 'ADR-0090 D3' },
+  position: { recipientType: 'position' },
+  unit_and_subordinates: { recipientType: 'unit_and_subordinates' },
+};
+
+/**
+ * The remedy `grant()` appends to its refusal of a non-`user` `recipientType`
+ * that is not retired: the sharing-rule recipient that delivers a declared
+ * value, or, for a value no record share declares, that it is not one. It
+ * never names a route for a value it does not know.
+ */
+function nonUserRecipientTypeRemedy(value: unknown): string {
+  const route = typeof value === 'string'
+    && Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(RULE_ROUTE_BY_RECORD_SHARE_RECIPIENT, value)
+    ? RULE_ROUTE_BY_RECORD_SHARE_RECIPIENT[value as keyof typeof RULE_ROUTE_BY_RECORD_SHARE_RECIPIENT]
+    : undefined;
+  if (route === undefined) {
+    return `${JSON.stringify(value)} is not a record-share recipient type (ADR-0111 D7)`;
+  }
+  return `a ${value as string} recipient is delivered via a sharing rule with recipient type '${route.recipientType}'`
+    + (route.renamedBy !== undefined ? `, its name since the ${route.renamedBy} rename` : '')
+    + ' (ADR-0111 D7)';
+}
+
 /**
  * Owner field convention. Hard-coded to `owner_id` for MVP — the
  * sharing model in Salesforce / ServiceNow / Dynamics all assume a
@@ -1383,8 +1429,11 @@ export class SharingService implements ISharingService {
     const recipientType = input.recipientType ?? 'user';
     // [ADR-0111 D7] Only `user` recipients are consulted by the read/write
     // gates; persisting any other type would be a silently inert grant
-    // (ADR-0078). Group / business-unit principals are delivered via sharing
-    // rules, whose evaluator expands them into per-user rows.
+    // (ADR-0078). Group / position / business-unit principals are delivered
+    // via sharing rules, whose evaluator expands them into per-user rows; the
+    // refusal names the rule recipient for each declared value
+    // (`RULE_ROUTE_BY_RECORD_SHARE_RECIPIENT`), because the rule vocabulary
+    // does not spell every one of them the same way (`group` is `team`).
     if (recipientType !== 'user') {
       // [ADR-0138 D8] A retired value no longer typechecks, yet still reaches
       // here untyped. It is told where guest access lives, never that a sharing
@@ -1394,7 +1443,7 @@ export class SharingService implements ISharingService {
         retired !== undefined
           ? `VALIDATION_FAILED: ${retired}`
           : `VALIDATION_FAILED: recipientType must be 'user' (received ${JSON.stringify(recipientType)}) — `
-            + `group/position recipients are delivered via sharing rules (ADR-0111 D7)`,
+            + nonUserRecipientTypeRemedy(recipientType),
       );
     }
     // Validate BEFORE any write. Previously anything at all was persisted