Recurring defect class: durable claims authored without checking their authority #99

Class

Durable claims — docs, skill guidance, marketing copy — are authored from assumption rather than checked against the authority they describe: the tool's actual behavior, the canonical copy a locale must track, the platform's documented model.

Evidence

Three separate merged PRs across three repositories in the 2026-09-17 → 2026-09-30 window:

• fix: make markdown routes extensionless and cache-safe workshop-md-converter#53 — the machine-consumer contract described Cloudflare's caching model incorrectly (Cache API locality vs Workers Caching); caught in review.
• feat: add Simplified Chinese localization and language switcher wrightkit.dev#25 — zh-CN copy claimed more than the English canonical it must stay aligned with (skill described as built into Wright, stronger editor-integration and false-positive claims); caught in review.
• fix(wright): state that inspect is unavailable for OPY input skills#11 — the Wright guide documented inspect as applying to OPY input; released Wright refuses it and the support matrix documents the refusal; corrected in a follow-up PR.

The closest pair (wrightkit.dev#25 → skills#11, ~73.5h) lands just outside the wrightkit-retro three-day fast window, so this follows the recurring-findings route in docs/pr-review.md: the same class reported in three separate PRs, here across repositories.

Prior decision

wrightkit/opy-rs#556 recorded a decision for the same class inside opy-rs: closed as already covered — the workspace documentation-synchronization invariant plus the repository's support-claims rule — because all cited findings were caught in review. These three incidents show the class in repositories whose local guidance has no equivalent claims rule.

Note: the three repositories are secondary surfaces, so per-repo docs/LESSONS.md entries were not established there; this Issue is the record for the class in those repos.

Outcome needed

Per docs/pr-review.md recurring-findings, this Issue ends in either:

• an existing policy gaining or sharpening one rule (candidate: the reviewer entry point tracked in Add a reviewer coding-standards entry point and clarify recurring contract checks #83); or
• a recorded decision that existing coverage is sufficient as-is.

Refs wrightkit/workshop-md-converter#53, wrightkit/wrightkit.dev#25, wrightkit/skills#11, wrightkit/opy-rs#556.