docs: record that clinical sign-off pins cover the reviewed source record

Merged
BI
1mo ago
+34-0

User description

Summary

Before: Nothing in the repository said what a clinical sign-off pin covers. That question was raised in review on #3575.

After: The owner's decision is recorded. The pin covers the record a clinician reviewed: a form's catalogue entry and guidance, or a curated service record. It does not cover the projected publication row, so existing sign-offs stay valid.

How: A sentence is added to the safety-gate header in scripts/publish-site-content-first-catalogue.ts, and a matching docs/decisions/ index entry cites it. No behaviour changes.

Areas touched: Clinical reference content, Knowledge and records

Verification

  • Checks run: npm run check:decisions gives "decisions: 126 entries, 1 full records, 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 unanchored". npm run check:instructions gives "instruction-budget: pass". Prettier gives "All matched files use Prettier code style!"

Risk and rollout

  • Risk: None. This is a comment and docs only.
  • Rollback: Revert the commit.
  • Provider or production effects: None

Notes

This follows the owner's "Go ahead with all recommendations" in the PR 3574 thread, which chose "Keep as is" on the sign-off coverage question.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_016imb8DCuk85z3FWRDDyZx5

Generated by Claude Code

Summary by cubic

Records the owner's decision that a clinical sign-off pin covers the reviewed source record, not the projected publication row.

  • Adds a comment in scripts/publish-site-content-first-catalogue.ts, a matching docs/decisions/ entry, and a refreshed repo-awareness snapshot.
  • No behavior changes; existing sign-offs stay valid because the projected row is built only from the pinned source.

CodeAnt-AI Description

Document what clinical sign-offs approve

What Changed

  • Clarifies that sign-off pins cover the reviewed source record—a form’s catalogue entry and guidance, or a curated service record—not the projected publication row.
  • Records that existing sign-offs remain valid without re-signing, while source content changed since review is still refused at first publication.

Impact

✅ Existing clinical approvals remain valid
✅ Changed source content remains blocked from first publication

💡 Usage Guide

Checking Your Pull Request

Every time you make a pull request, our system automatically looks through it. We check for security issues, mistakes in how you're setting up your infrastructure, and common code problems. We do this to make sure your changes are solid and won't cause any trouble later.

Talking to CodeAnt AI

Got a question or need a hand with something in your pull request? You can easily get in touch with CodeAnt AI right here. Just type the following in a comment on your pull request, and replace "Your question here" with whatever you want to ask:

@codeant-ai ask: Your question here

This lets you have a chat with CodeAnt AI about your pull request, making it easier to understand and improve your code.

Example

@codeant-ai ask: Can you suggest a safer alternative to storing this secret?

Preserve Org Learnings with CodeAnt

You can record team preferences so CodeAnt AI applies them in future reviews. Reply directly to the specific CodeAnt AI suggestion (in the same thread) and replace "Your feedback here" with your input:

@codeant-ai: Your feedback here

This helps CodeAnt AI learn and adapt to your team's coding style and standards.

Example

@codeant-ai: Do not flag unused imports.

Retrigger review

Ask CodeAnt AI to review the PR again, by typing:

@codeant-ai: review

Check Your Repository Health

To analyze the health of your code repository, visit our dashboard at https://app.codeant.ai. This tool helps you identify potential issues and areas for improvement in your codebase, ensuring your repository maintains high standards of code health.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Clarified that clinical sign-offs cover the reviewed source content, not projected publication rows.
    • Documented that existing sign-offs remain valid, while first publication is blocked if reviewed content has changed since sign-off.