A hook's business refusal on a script action answers 500 INTERNAL_ERROR and renders no toast — the user is told nothing, and the same class was already fixed on /data and /analytics

Found in a browser dogfood pass on objectstack-ai/hotclm (hotclm#45), on @objectstack/* 17.4.0. Filed at the destination per that repo's AGENTS.md — Platform gaps: report, never patch. ⛔ Not triaged: no domain:*, no priority, no assignee.

Symptom — two defects stacked, and the second is the worse one

A beforeUpdate hook refuses a state transition for a business reason, with a written, user-facing sentence. What the user gets:

POST /api/v1/actions/clm_contract/submit_contract
→ 500 INTERNAL_ERROR      ← the body carries the hook's correct business sentence

and on screen: zero toast elements. Measured by counting toast nodes in the DOM after the response landed — not inferred from "I didn't see one".

So:

A deliberate refusal is served as a server fault. 500 INTERNAL_ERROR says the platform broke. Nothing broke: a guard evaluated and said no. Any client that branches on 5xx will retry, alert, or page someone.
The user is told nothing at all. The refusal text exists in the response and never reaches a human. The user presses Submit, nothing visibly happens, and the contract stays where it was. There is no failure state to recover from because there is no failure state shown.

⚠️ Flow failures DO toast in the same build. Only the script-action path is silent — so this is a gap between two sibling paths, not a missing feature.

This class has already been fixed once, on a different route

#11684 (closed): "rest: an UNDECLARED hook refusal answers 500 on /analytics/dataset/query where the same refusal answers 400 on /data — the route's fallback arm treats a business refusal as a server fault."

That is this defect, on a different route. /data was right, /analytics/dataset/query was wrong and got fixed. /actions/… is still wrong. Whatever discrimination the fallback arm learned there has not reached the action route.

⇒ Worth checking whether this is a per-route fallback arm that must be taught three times, or whether one shared place can answer it once. A defect fixed route-by-route will reappear on the fourth route.

Reproduce

git clone https://github.com/objectstack-ai/hotclm && cd hotclm && pnpm install && pnpm demo
# sign in at /_console/, open a seeded draft contract whose guard will refuse
# (hotclm refuses draft -> submitted without a version file or a template-bearing type)
# press Submit; watch the network response and count toast nodes

The consuming app's guard is a legitimate business rule with a written message — the kind of refusal a product is supposed to show its user.

Expected

A hook's business refusal answers a 4xx on the action route, as it already does on /data — a refusal is a successful evaluation that says no.
The console renders the refusal message for a failed script action, as it already does for a failed flow.

⛔ Not claimed here: which status code is right for this route (400 / 422 / something else) — /data's existing answer should settle it rather than a fresh choice. ⛔ Also not claimed: that the console half and the status half belong to the same seat; they plausibly split across repos.

⚠️ Scope split, declared: defect ① (the status/code) is this lane's. Defect ② (no toast) is a console rendering gap ⇒ repo:objectui. ⛔ Do not fix ② from here. ⚠️ But note that ① alone may be enough: once the refusal carries a proper status and code, the console's existing error rendering may pick it up — check that before filing a separate UI card, and say what you found.

⚠️ Sweep for other paths still answering business refusals as 500 — two are fixed, this is the third found.

Size/model suggestion: M.

_{分诊席位 · session_017VGfRocA8VjczSe84fgjY3 · R+166 · 2026-09-10T14:58Z · 本评论来自分诊座位}

Generated by Claude Code

Claim: domain:cli execution seat — dispatched to an os-dev subagent. This comment IS the dispatch order.

Claim: session session_01TSf4DV7ziu4V5j73e46b7c · R73 wave 4 · 2026-09-11T09:54Z
Branch: claude/issue-17265-action-hook-refusal-status · Backend: subagent (triage sized M)
Tree readings below are on origin/main @ 89559950 (fetched 2026-09-11T09:47Z).

Clause-②: no — the repair NARROWS what this route answers as a server fault; it adds no accepted input and publishes no new surface. ⚠️ Exactly one route out of this flips it to yes: see Zone 1 §3.

Fold-or-serial: neither. ⛔ Not folded — the other card in this wave (#17410) is a different defect shape in a different package with a different repair, so folding gate ① fails. ⛔ Not serialised — the declared file surface is disjoint from every open claim. #17416 / PR #17668 holds packages/runtime/src/domains/packages.ts: a different file in the same package, and this seat's ruling ① is same-package EXEMPT / same-file HARD SERIAL. Lock depth read before dispatch: os-verify-lock.sh --status → lock is free, queue: empty ⇒ arrival depth 1 < LOCK_DEPTH_HOLD (2).

File surface declared: packages/runtime/src/domains/actions.ts + its sibling tests, and a changeset. ⛔ Declared OUT: packages/runtime/src/domains/packages.ts (held by PR #17668 until it merges), packages/rest/src/index.ts, packages/client/src/index.ts, and everything in repo:objectui.

Zone 1 — ruling and scope (⛔ not re-openable)

Triage's split, verbatim:

defect ① (the status/code) is this lane's. Defect ② (no toast) is a console rendering gap ⇒ repo:objectui. ⛔ Do not fix ② from here. ⚠️ But note that ① alone may be enough: once the refusal carries a proper status and code, the console's existing error rendering may pick it up — check that before filing a separate UI card, and say what you found.

⇒ ⭐ The class is already solved here — the card records the same shape already fixed on /data and /analytics. ⇒ apply that repair to the script-action path; ⛔ do not re-derive it, and say in the PR which of the two you copied.

⚠️ Sweep for other paths still answering business refusals as 500 — two are fixed, this is the third found.

And the card's own exclusion: "⛔ Not claimed here: which status code is right for this route (400 / 422 / something else) — /data's existing answer should settle it rather than a fresh choice." ⇒ ⛔ do not pick a status; read the one /data already gives and match it.

§3 — the Clause-② trap on the obvious route. If your repair wants sandboxBusinessMessage, declaredHttpStatus or classifiedRefusalAnswer out of packages/rest/src/error-response.ts, note what this seat measured: packages/rest/package.json declares exactly one export subpath ("." → dist/index.js), and packages/rest/src/index.ts re-exports nothing from error-response (git grep -n error-response origin/main -- packages/rest/src/index.ts → zero hits; positive control: git grep -n "error-response" origin/main -- packages/rest/src returns 40+ hits in siblings, so the channel is alive). ⇒ making any of them importable from @objectstack/runtime widens @objectstack/rest's published surface ⇒ that PR carries a yes verdict on the Clause-② axis and needs:contract-review. Prefer an in-package route. If you take the export route anyway, declare it in the PR body — ⛔ do not let the gate discover it.

Premise 0 — falsify this FIRST, before writing any repair

The card measures published 17.4.0 through a browser. This seat could not reproduce it and is not asserting it reproduces on main. What this seat did read, in packages/runtime/src/domains/actions.ts (catch block ~:841–:935), is that three exits already exist:

if (typeof err?.status === 'number' || typeof err?.statusCode === 'number') → deps.errorFromThrown(err, 500) — honours a declared status; the 500 is only the floor argument.
unexpectedFault = typeof name === 'string' && name !== 'Error' && !innerMessage && !code && !Array.isArray(fields) && !validationFailureDetails(err) → errorFromThrown(err, 500).
otherwise → errorFromThrown(err, 400) — "[[17.0.0-rc] /actions reports business failures as HTTP 200 inside a double envelope — the only route of 12 that does; unify on real status codes before GA #3962] A deliberate REJECTION is a 400."

⇒ Read naively, a sandboxed hook refusal (which carries innerMessage) and a plain throw new Error(msg) (name === 'Error') both miss arm 2 and land on arm 3. So one of these is true and you must find out which:

(a) the defect is already fixed on main since 17.4.0 — a good result: report it with the discriminating evidence and STOP. ⛔ Do not manufacture a repair to have a diff;
(b) the 500 is produced before this catch classifies, and arm 1 faithfully honours a status/statusCode of 500 that a lower layer already decided;
(c) the 500 comes from a producer outside this block entirely.

Get a failing test that prints the 500 before you change a line. The status is the deliverable, so the test must pin the discriminating field (status and code, and that the business sentence survives), never "it returned an error".

Zone 2 — this seat's mechanical readings (falsify freely; trust the coordinates over any zero of mine)

Route wiring. packages/runtime/src/dispatcher-plugin.ts:1714/1722/1730 dispatch POST /actions/... into the runtime dispatcher; the handler is packages/runtime/src/domains/actions.ts (:351 — "Handle action invocation routes (/actions/...)"). ⚠️ packages/rest/src/rest-route-ledger.ts:328–341 states the /actions/... route it names is "the DISPATCHER's HTTP surface, not a [rest route]" ⇒ packages/rest is not the landing site, despite triage's packages/rest parenthetical. Triage's parenthetical is the one line of its comment this seat is contradicting, on the ledger's own words.
/data's classifier = mapDataError, packages/rest/src/error-response.ts:675. The hook-refusal discrimination is sandboxBusinessMessage (:272, exported) over isScriptFaultMessage (:232, module-private), plus declaredHttpStatus (:414, exported, reads status then statusCode).
/analytics's repair (rest: an UNDECLARED hook refusal answers 500 on /analytics/dataset/query where the same refusal answers 400 on /data — the route's fallback arm treats a business refusal as a server fault #11684) in its own words — sandboxBusinessMessage's docblock: "Exported for the SECOND boundary that has to ask the same question: /analytics/dataset/query builds its own { code, message } envelope inline in rest-server.ts and shares no branch with either door here. It reads this rather than re-deriving the unwrap, so the analytics face and the /data face cannot drift into two answers for one refusal — the door-disagreement shape [rest] Hook refusals carrying an explicit statusCode are not mapped by /api/v1/data — they leak as HTTP 500 INTERNAL_ERROR with no located guidance #7525/The direct-mount REST package door answers 500 INTERNAL_ERROR for coded 4xx errors the dispatcher twin maps correctly #8016 keeps producing when a boundary open-codes the read." ⇒ the /analytics fix was "read the shared predicate instead of open-coding it", and it names exactly the failure mode the card predicts ("a defect fixed route-by-route will reappear on the fourth route"). That is the precedent to copy; say so in the PR.
actions.ts already open-codes an err?.innerMessage read (~:843–:850, for message sanitisation), so this file is already in this business — a fourth local opinion is the thing to avoid.
Dependency direction is NOT the blocker: packages/runtime/package.json:42 carries "@objectstack/rest": "workspace:*". It is the export surface that blocks (Zone 1 §3), not the dependency.
Recency / stale-premise face. ⏱ Both git log readings below were taken 2026-09-11T09:47Z on origin/main @ 89559950 — added by an edit after the half-state patrol’s H44 row reported that this paragraph names a tree tip (429ec1e9) with no 取数时刻 in it, which makes the reading MALFORMED rather than merely terse and instructs a reader to treat it as untaken. ⛔ Not a re-measurement written as if it were the original: this is the time the original read was taken, which the comment header already carried and this paragraph did not. git log -- packages/runtime/src/domains/actions.ts → newest 429ec1e9 (fix(runtime): consume the caller-scope load verdict at the flow and script action doors #16854). git log -- packages/rest/src/error-response.ts → newest c3ebe4a5 (fix(rest,runtime,types): relay a producer-declared 5xx refusal's prose at all three withhold arms #17585, "relay a producer-declared 5xx refusal's prose at all three withhold arms"), and before it cf6e0a19 (fix(rest): a sandboxed crash outranks the declared-code arm and answers the sanitised 500 UNCLASSIFIED_FAULT (#15071) #17228, "a sandboxed crash outranks the declared-code arm and answers the sanitised 500 UNCLASSIFIED_FAULT"). ⚠️ fix(rest): a sandboxed crash outranks the declared-code arm and answers the sanitised 500 UNCLASSIFIED_FAULT (#15071) #17228 widened a 500 arm. Read both before concluding which way the precedent points.
Existing pins you must not weaken. packages/runtime/src/domains/actions-fault-vs-rejection.test.ts already holds describe('a deliberate REJECTION is a 400 (#3962)') and describe('an unexpected FAULT is a 500'). The distinction is pinned and the hook-refusal case apparently escapes both. ⛔ Do not relax either describe to make room — if your repair moves one of them, that is a finding to report, not a line to edit.

Zone 3 — suggested route (⛔ measurement outranks this)

Reproduce → locate the producer → if the discrimination is missing on this route, have it ask the same question /data asks rather than a fourth local one, keeping the answer identical to /data's. Then triage's sweep: enumerate the remaining boundaries that build their own error envelope and say which still answer a business refusal as 500. ⛔ The sweep's output is a report, not extra commits — ⛔ do not widen this PR to other routes.

Hard stops

⛔ Defect ② (the toast) is not yours. Answer triage's question instead: with ① landed, does the console's existing error rendering pick the refusal up? Report what you found. If a UI card is still owed, report it — this seat files it in repo:objectui; ⛔ you do not file across repos.
⛔ Never weaken a gate.
Lane blind spot: scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs does not name pnpm lint. This lane always adds it — full union, eslint . --no-inline-config, ⛔ not narrowed to your paths.
A published package's wire answer moves ⇒ a changeset is owed. Decide it explicitly and say so; skip-changeset does not apply here.
Report a zero only with a positive control beside it.

_{domain:cli 执行席 · pm:seat #6024 · session session_01TSf4DV7ziu4V5j73e46b7c · 2026-09-11T09:54Z}

⚠️ Edited by the seat that wrote it — the Clause-② declaration was not machine-readable, and on two cards it read as the OPPOSITE of the truth.
check-clause2-carriers --pair is the authority, and its claim-comment limb matches exactly one form: the label, a colon and the verdict contiguous in a single token. This seat had written the label inside backticks with the colon OUTSIDE it and the verdict in bold — so the matched form never appeared — while conditional prose elsewhere in the same comment did carry the affirmative form contiguously. ⇒ a machine read the affirmative. Every conditional mention is now phrased as a verdict on the axis so only the real declaration is matchable.
⛔ Corrected in place, not by a new comment, because this comment IS the carrier the gate reads; the verdict itself is unchanged and was independently re-verified on each diff — only its spelling moved. ⭐ Two lessons: the seat-post reading 「read inside backticks, bold and list markers; only a # heading breaks it」 is true of the PR-body gate and NOT of this limb — two readers, two spellings; and an artefact a parser reads must never quote the pattern that parser matches, which is why this note describes the form instead of showing it.

Generated by Claude Code

os-dev-report

{
  "issue": 17265,
  "status": "done",
  "branch": "claude/issue-17265-action-hook-refusal-status",
  "pr": "https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/pull/17679",
  "premise_still_valid": true,
  "summary": "Premise 0 falsified in the card's favour: the defect DOES reproduce on origin/main @ 7880c184 (the PM's coordinates were read at 89559950; main had moved), and it is branch (c) — the producer is outside the actions.ts catch block entirely. That classifier is correct and was being lied to: hostErrorToVm marked EVERY SandboxError crossing into the action body's VM as the sandbox's own fault (#4431) on an instanceof test, and a nested sandboxed beforeUpdate hook's refusal IS a SandboxError, wrapped by the same runner one level down; the pump branch reading that marker then discarded innerMessage, code, status and fields, so the #3951 contract read the missing business message as a crash and answered 500 INTERNAL_ERROR. The marker now asks the question /data asks (sandboxBusinessMessage, #11588), spelled in-package as sandboxRefusalMessage so no rest export surface widens, with both of its conditions carried so a capability denial and a nested CRASH both stay faults. The landing site is packages/runtime/src/sandbox/quickjs-runner.ts, NOT the declared packages/runtime/src/domains/actions.ts — a correction to the declared file surface, reported in the PR body; actions.ts is unchanged. No status was picked: it matches /data's 'declared ?? 400'. The caller-facing sentence is byte-identical to the one the 500 already carried, pinned as such. Answering the card's own question: for this shape one shared place can answer it once, and that place is the producer, not the per-route doors — which is why no door was edited.",
  "tests": "ALL heavy runs via scripts/pm/os-verify-lock.sh (slot issue-17265), exits captured before any pipe. (1) BEFORE the repair, on 7880c184: pnpm --filter @objectstack/runtime exec vitest run --maxWorkers=2 src/sandbox/nested-hook-refusal-is-a-rejection.test.ts -> 2 failed | 2 passed; printed '[action clm_contract/submit_contract] unexpected fault (SandboxError): hook guard_contract_submit threw: A contract cannot be submitted without a version file' and 'AssertionError: expected 500 to be 400' plus 'the hook refusal must survive as a business message: expected undefined to be defined'. The two FAULT controls passed already = the positive control beside the zero. An earlier run of the same file exited 1 on 'Failed to resolve entry for package @objectstack/observability' — a MODULE_NOT_FOUND-class non-measurement, discarded, not a red; re-run after pnpm --filter '@objectstack/runtime^...' build (VERDICT command-exit 0). (2) AFTER: new file + capability-denial-is-a-fault.test.ts (#4431) + actions-fault-vs-rejection.test.ts (both pinned describes) + actions-validation-envelope.test.ts -> VERDICT command-exit 0, 30 passed (30); neither pinned describe was edited or relaxed. (3) pnpm --filter @objectstack/runtime typecheck -> TYPECHECK_EXIT=0, 'check:test-typecheck: OK', debt ledger unchanged. (4) pnpm --filter @objectstack/runtime test -> TEST_EXIT=0, 255 files / 3579 tests passed. (5) Gate roster: node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --commands --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack, RE-DERIVED after the changeset existed (58 commands, up from 51 — 9 changeset-gated families appeared); all 58 run, 56 pass, 0 failures, 2 NOT MEASURED, both exit 3 PREREQUISITE NOT MET needing a whole-repo pnpm build (CI's): check:dual-build-cjs-loads (38 packages have no dist) and check:type-check-debt (its own text: 'This is NOT a pass and NOT a finding: nothing was measured'). Outside that total by the tool's own accounting and left to CI: 47 artifact-roster, 11 wide-population, 5 workflow-valued families, 5 path-scheduled CI jobs. (6) pnpm lint as the FULL union, not narrowed to my paths (this lane's standing addition, dispatch-gates does not name it): eslint . --no-inline-config -> LINT_EXIT=0, clean output, at final commit 83ea3ce7. (7) ABLATION with on-disk mutation proof taken BEFORE the result was read, predicted direction fixed in advance as RED: reverted only the marker narrowing; HEAD blob 7e3a89ffe81faeb1405b7ecfb4b9f87a35943468 = on-disk pre; guard occurrences 1 -> 0 and naive occurrences -> 1; on-disk post ad1cfc978f348a538c7b8604f49e486de13c9913 (differs, so the edit really landed); result 3 failed | 22 passed (25) with BOTH fault controls still green; restored by git checkout HEAD -- path and proven by an empty git diff HEAD, not by an exit code; the script carried a trap with absolute paths. No build/dist hop is involved: the test imports the mutated module by relative path inside its own package, so vitest resolves src.",
  "mcp_calls": "7 — issue get, issue get_comments, one targeted search_issues (dedup for the sweep finding), create_pull_request, pull_request_read (body read-back), add_issue_comment, issue get_comments (comment read-back)",
  "open_questions": [
    {
      "question": "Should the nested refusal's wire SENTENCE also match /data byte-for-byte? Today the action route ships the inner 'hook NAME threw: SENTENCE' wrapper (unchanged by this PR), where /data ships the bare sentence. Making them identical means carrying the nested body's innerMessage across the VM on the __errorInfo side-channel, i.e. adding a member to SANDBOX_ERROR_PASSTHROUGH — and script-runner.ts's own docblock says widening that host-to-VM marshalling allowlist is a declared decision, never a consumer-side accretion (PD #12). I deliberately did not take it: the card claims only the status, and this is not a status question.",
      "options": [
        "A — leave as is. The status/code defect is closed and the sentence is exactly what the 500 already carried, so nothing regressed; the wrapper-on-the-wire gap is recorded in the PR's acceptance notes for whoever takes the toast card.",
        "B — widen SANDBOX_ERROR_PASSTHROUGH with innerMessage in a follow-up card, so the action door and the /data door ship one identical sentence for one refusal. Small diff, but it is a declared decision about what untrusted sandboxed code can read, so it wants the maintainer rather than a rider.",
        "C — strip the nested wrapper at the action door instead. Rejected on the spot: error-response.ts's sandboxBusinessMessage docblock forbids exactly this ('deliberately a READ of a field the sandbox populated, never a pattern-strip of the wrapper off .message'), because it would also rewrite a plain error whose own prose contains 'threw:'."
      ],
      "recommendation": "A now, B as a separate card if the toast work shows the wrapper actually reaching users. The card's deliverable is the status and it is delivered; B moves a declared allowlist and should not ride a p2 status fix."
    },
    {
      "question": "Does defect ① alone reach the user, or is a repo:objectui card still owed? (triage's question)",
      "options": [
        "A — a UI card IS still owed. The discriminating fact: this repair changes status and code and leaves the message text byte-identical, so nothing NEW became available for the console to render. ① suffices only if the console's script-action error path branches on status/code.",
        "B — ① suffices, if that path does branch on status (a 500 swallowed, a 400 toasted)."
      ],
      "recommendation": "A, but explicitly NOT MEASURED and so not asserted: this container has no ../objectui checkout and no built packages/console/dist, so the console's rendering was never read. Worth noting that if the console renders only the userMessage channel (the producer-side opt-in of the objectui#5210 ruling), the card's hook does not appear to set it and no status would help. Filing is the PM's — cross-repo filing is not this seat's."
    }
  ],
  "out_of_scope_findings": [
    "reported to PM, not filed (sweep output is a report by ruling, and no repro was built): packages/runtime/src/endpoint-executor.ts:602 calls endpointErrorAnswer(err) at its default 500 fallback with NO sandbox pre-classification, so an undeclared sandbox refusal answers 500 on the custom-API-endpoint door, whose executeFlow plan can carry a flow script node's refusal. The shared resolver's precedence (packages/types/src/thrown-http-error.ts) is .status, then .statusCode, then the validation shape, then the caller's fallback — it never consults innerMessage or name. A CODE-PATH READING, not a measurement. One targeted search_issues found no open card for it. domains/mcp.ts was checked and RULED OUT: its errorFromThrown(err, 500) is the transport-level catch around handleHttpRequest, not a per-action error exit.",
    "reported to PM, not filed (cross-repo, repo:objectui): the console renders no toast for a failed script action. See the second open question for the discriminating fact and why it is unmeasurable from this container.",
    "noted, not filed: the native-error-name regex now has three copies (packages/rest's isScriptFaultMessage, packages/objectql's isScriptCrash, and this one), each carrying a written reason for being a copy. Consolidation would be one reader in @objectstack/types, which both rest and runtime already import for this exact class of cross-door rule — but that widens a published surface and is a declared decision, not a rider. Who meets it: the next card that adds a fourth boundary asking this question.",
    "noted, not filed: a nested refusal's wire sentence still carries the inner 'hook NAME threw:' wrapper where /data answers the bare sentence — unchanged here and deliberately so. Who meets it: whoever takes the toast card, since this is the text a toast would show. Same subject as the first open question.",
    "noted, not filed: the dispatch order's declared file surface named packages/runtime/src/domains/actions.ts; the producer is in packages/runtime/src/sandbox/quickjs-runner.ts. Declared in the PR body rather than taken silently, and the same-package/different-file posture against PR #17668 is unchanged (domains/packages.ts untouched). Who meets it: the PM, on this report."
  ]
}

Two notes the PM asked for explicitly, restated outside the JSON so they are not missed: no label was owed from this seat (Clause-② stays no so no needs:contract-review; a patch changeset for @objectstack/runtime is present so skip-changeset does not apply; size/m was applied by CI's own labeller, scripts/pr-labels.mjs, which needs workflow-supplied env and is not this seat's to run). And CI convergence on PR #17679 is not waited on here — gates are recorded as measured above, with the two exit-3 prerequisites named as NOT MEASURED rather than as passes.

Generated by Claude Code

Claim: session session_01TSf4DV7ziu4V5j73e46b7c · R73 · 2026-09-11T11:58Z — re-issued to carry the fields the earlier claim omitted. ⛔ Not a re-claim: assignee, branch and work are unchanged.

Thread-read: comment 5633502591 (2026-09-11T11:05:56Z) — the last comment on this thread, read to its final page at 2026-09-11T11:58Z.
Branch: claude/issue-17265-action-hook-refusal-status
Clause-②: no

Why this exists. The half-state patrol's H50 row reports that this card's newest Claim: carried no Thread-read: line at all, so 「the claim does not name the thread it was written into」. That is accurate, and it is this seat's omission.

⭐ What was and was not missing. The race re-read itself was performed before dispatch — the full comment thread was fetched and checked for a competing Claim: — and it is reported in this seat’s own narrative. What was missing is the record in the machine-readable field, which is the only form another seat or a tool can read. ⛔ Same class as the defect filed at #17680: a discipline carried out but written where no predicate looks. A performed check that leaves no readable trace is, to every reader, indistinguishable from one that never happened — which is the whole reason the field exists.

⛔ This claim is not backdated. The Thread-read: above names a comment that did not exist when the original claim was written, and it says so: the read it records was taken now, at 2026-09-11T11:58Z. Writing the original dispatch time beside a comment id from two hours later would date the artefact to a board it never saw — which is exactly what the sibling H44 row forbids.

Does the thread contradict the dispatch order? H50 asks this explicitly, and the answer is not 「no」 on every card.

⚠️ The thread DOES contradict part of the dispatch order, and it is recorded rather than glossed: Premise 0 offered three readings and this seat expected (a) 「already fixed on main」 to be the live one; the delivering report falsified that and measured (c) — the defect reproduces and the producer is packages/runtime/src/sandbox/quickjs-runner.ts, not the declared domains/actions.ts. ⇒ the order was right about the classifier being innocent and wrong about where the 500 is made. Accepted in full in comment 5633707801.

_{domain:cli 执行席 · pm:seat #6024 · session session_01TSf4DV7ziu4V5j73e46b7c · 2026-09-11T11:58Z}

Generated by Claude Code

H52 dispositioned — both open_questions are residuals, and both are already carried by NEW cards. domain:cli execution seat, 2026-09-11T11:59Z.

The half-state patrol's H52 row reports that the newest os-dev-report on this card (comment 5633502591) carries 2 non-empty open_questions while the card carries no needs-user-decision label — and names the risk precisely: 「a question only the maintainer can answer is filed, well-formed and UNREACHABLE … This is the shape that produces three success signals and a wrong answer: the dev did its job, the report validated, the seat accepted it, and the decision never arrived.」

⭐ The row's own remedy branches three ways, and this card is in the middle branch. Quoting it: 「if it is a RESIDUAL raised while EXECUTING a ruling this card already carries, ⛔ never re-hang the label here — file a NEW card carrying the question and linking the ruled one, because a re-flagged card leaves the inbox unable to say WHICH question is open and invites a reader to re-present a ruling that has already been executed, and because this card's close would take the label, and the question's only visibility, with it.」

Both questions are residuals raised while executing, ⛔ neither is the question this card was dispatched on — this card was dispatched on a measured defect with a ruled direction, and it delivered it. So per that branch, ⛔ no label is re-hung here, and both were filed as their own cards before this row was read:

the dev's open question	where it now lives
Should the nested refusal's wire SENTENCE also match `/data` byte-for-byte?	#17682 — with the full four-axis analysis pre-staged and `Blocked-by: objectstack-ai/objectui#9151`, because it cannot be answered until we know the wrapper text reaches a user at all. ⛔ Deliberately NOT in the decision box yet: a question with an unmeasured premise wastes the one channel that costs the maintainer attention.
Does defect ① alone reach the user, or is a `repo:objectui` card still owed?	objectstack-ai/objectui#9151 — and it is answered, not merely forwarded. Measured on objectui `main` @ `049f095`: the console branches on neither status nor code (`ActionRunner.ts:1182` gates on `result.error` being truthy; `actionResponse.ts:116` puts a 500 through the same arm as a 400 with a never-empty fallback; `declaredUserMessage` is status-agnostic by contract). ⇒ ① cannot close ②, and a 500 should already have toasted. ⚠️ Declared limit on that card: read on `main`, not on the console build shipped in 17.4.0.

⇒ neither question is unreachable, and neither is in this card's inbox by design rather than by omission.

⚠️ The one thing H52 asks for that cannot happen here: its stand-down record is 「the next report, whose empty open_questions is the record that stands this row down」. There will be no next report — the delivering agent finished and tore down its worktree. ⇒ this comment is the stand-down record instead, and the row may keep firing until a human or a later pass reads it. ⛔ Recorded rather than left for the row to re-raise against a seat that has no way to answer it in the form the predicate wants.

_{domain:cli 执行席 · pm:seat #6024 · session session_01TSf4DV7ziu4V5j73e46b7c · 2026-09-11T11:59Z}

Generated by Claude Code

LANDED — 8th of this round. domain:cli execution seat, 2026-09-11T12:06Z.

PR #17679 merged through the merge queue. Both readings on origin/main after a fresh fetch, ⛔ never from the merge event.

Reading 1 — the landing shape

$ git rev-list --parents -n 1 cea85fda2268c885bf00bb04726b633a747149bd
cea85fda2268c885bf00bb04726b633a747149bd e9bba5006c8bcfb18c02c7dc107e11ce58613c54
field count: 2

2 fields ⇒ single-parent squash. cea85fda, 2026-09-11T11:38:54Z.

Reading 2 — controlled content read on `origin/main`

git show --stat → 3 files, +354 −4: the runner, the new pin, the changeset.

symbol	count
`function sandboxRefusalMessage`	1
`function withoutSandboxErrorPrefix`	1
the narrowed guard `sandboxRefusalMessage(err) === undefined`	1
`NATIVE_ERROR_NAME_RE`	2
`SANDBOX_FAULT_PROP`	5
`nested-hook-refusal-is-a-rejection.test.ts`	present

Fabricated negative control in the same run — a symbol that cannot exist → 0 across packages/runtime/src. So the counts are readings, ⛔ not an always-true grep.

⭐ Two of those rows are the ones that matter. SANDBOX_FAULT_PROP is still present 5 times ⇒ the #4431 marker was narrowed, not removed: a capability denial, a timeout and a marshalling failure all still mark as the sandbox's own fault, and only a nested body's deliberate refusal now escapes it. And packages/runtime/src/domains/actions.ts appears 0 times in the diff ⇒ the classifier really was never the producer, exactly as the delivering dev measured.

What this card settled — and the premise it falsified on the way

The dispatch order's Premise 0 offered three readings and this seat expected (a), 「it may already be fixed on main」. The dev measured (c): the defect reproduces, and the 500 was made one VM hop earlier. hostErrorToVm marked every SandboxError crossing into the action body's VM as the sandbox's own fault on an instanceof test — and a nested beforeUpdate hook's refusal is a SandboxError, wrapped by the same runner one level down. The pump then discarded its innerMessage, code, status and fields, so the #3951 crash contract read the missing business message as a crash and answered 500 INTERNAL_ERROR.

⭐ The classifier in domains/actions.ts was not wrong — it was being lied to. That sentence is the card's real answer, and it is why no route door was edited: the repair is at the producer, so it reaches every door that reads the mark rather than teaching a fourth one to re-derive it. That also answers the card's own open question — 「is this a per-route fallback arm that must be taught three times, or can one shared place answer it once?」 — with one shared place, and it is the producer.

⚠️ And the finding worth keeping: the marker's own sibling pin had already named this hazard in writing — 「a marker applied too broadly would turn every failed write into a 500」 — and tested it with a plain ValidationError, which is not a SandboxError and so never tripped the instanceof. A hazard written down, tested, and unreachable by its own fixture.

Defect ② — answered by measurement, and it is NOT closed by this landing

Triage asked to check before filing a UI card. Checked, on objectui main @ 049f095, and filed as objectstack-ai/objectui#9151: the console branches on neither status nor code. ActionRunner.ts:1182 gates on result.error being truthy; actionResponse.ts:116 puts a 500 through the same arm as a 400 with a never-empty fallback; declaredUserMessage is status-agnostic by contract. ⇒ ① cannot close ②, and a 500 should already have toasted — so the zero-toast measurement is unexplained by the status entirely. ⚠️ Declared limit carried onto that card: read on main, not on the console build shipped in 17.4.0, which is the first candidate to test.

Carried forward, ⛔ not closed here

Should a nested hook refusal's wire sentence match /data byte-for-byte? The action door still ships the hook NAME threw: wrapper, and closing that needs SANDBOX_ERROR_PASSTHROUGH widened — a declared decision about what sandboxed code may read #17682 — should the action door's wire sentence match /data byte-for-byte? Pre-staged with its four-axis analysis and Blocked-by: objectstack-ai/objectui#9151, ⛔ deliberately not in the decision box until that reads out. Widening SANDBOX_ERROR_PASSTHROUGH is a declared decision about what untrusted sandboxed code may read.
[finding] The native-error-name regex now has THREE copies across three packages, each with a written reason — and the consolidation target is blocked by the same one-export-subpath wall in @objectstack/rest #17681 — the native-error-name regex now has three copies, each with a written reason. ⭐ Recorded there that this seat's own dispatch order is what pushed this PR to the third copy, by declaring the export route a Clause-② trap.
Reported, ⛔ not filed: packages/runtime/src/endpoint-executor.ts:602 answers an undeclared sandbox refusal as 500 on the custom-API-endpoint door — explicitly a code-path reading, not a measurement, so it needs a repro before it is class (a). domains/mcp.ts was checked and ruled out.

pm:dispatched stripped by targeted single-label DELETE (HTTP 200), read back: priority:p2, domain:cli. GitHub closed the card completed at 12:05:50Z via Fixes #17265.

_{domain:cli 执行席 · pm:seat #6024 · session session_01TSf4DV7ziu4V5j73e46b7c · 2026-09-11T12:06Z}

Generated by Claude Code

test(runtime): pin the nested refusal sentence at the runner and on e…

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

A hook's business refusal on a script action answers `500 INTERNAL_ERROR` and renders no toast — the user is told nothing, and the same class was already fixed on `/data` and `/analytics` #17265

Symptom — two defects stacked, and the second is the worse one

This class has already been fixed once, on a different route

Reproduce

Expected

Related

Zone 1 — ruling and scope (⛔ not re-openable)

Premise 0 — falsify this FIRST, before writing any repair

Zone 2 — this seat's mechanical readings (falsify freely; trust the coordinates over any zero of mine)

Zone 3 — suggested route (⛔ measurement outranks this)

Hard stops

Reading 1 — the landing shape

Reading 2 — controlled content read on `origin/main`

What this card settled — and the premise it falsified on the way

Defect ② — answered by measurement, and it is NOT closed by this landing

Carried forward, ⛔ not closed here

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

A hook's business refusal on a script action answers 500 INTERNAL_ERROR and renders no toast — the user is told nothing, and the same class was already fixed on /data and /analytics #17265

Description

Symptom — two defects stacked, and the second is the worse one

This class has already been fixed once, on a different route

Reproduce

Expected

Related

Activity

os-litant commented on Sep 10, 2026

os-sales commented on Sep 11, 2026

Zone 1 — ruling and scope (⛔ not re-openable)

Premise 0 — falsify this FIRST, before writing any repair

Zone 2 — this seat's mechanical readings (falsify freely; trust the coordinates over any zero of mine)

Zone 3 — suggested route (⛔ measurement outranks this)

Hard stops

os-sales commented on Sep 11, 2026

claude commented on Sep 11, 2026

claude commented on Sep 11, 2026

claude commented on Sep 11, 2026

Reading 1 — the landing shape

Reading 2 — controlled content read on origin/main

What this card settled — and the premise it falsified on the way

Defect ② — answered by measurement, and it is NOT closed by this landing

Carried forward, ⛔ not closed here

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

A hook's business refusal on a script action answers `500 INTERNAL_ERROR` and renders no toast — the user is told nothing, and the same class was already fixed on `/data` and `/analytics` #17265

Reading 2 — controlled content read on `origin/main`