Terra owes enamel a refile of provincia/localidad that Elazar decided on 2026-09-05 and nobody could file
HOLDS AN OBLIGATION TERRA OWES ENAMEL, so that it survives TERRA-143 being closed. It is not the work and it is not a row on enamel's board. THE DECISION. Elazar, 2026-09-05, marker DCX-143-20260905 on TERRA-143, disposed of that row's group 3 - the patient fields provincia and localidad - as REFILE TO THE ENAMEL LANE. Reason: no column for either exists anywhere. The shared pacientes table, measured 2026-09-05, is id, documentoType, documentoNumber, nombre, apellido, email, emailCanonical, telefono, fechaNacimiento, isSynthetic, syntheticSessionId, createdAt, updatedAt, deletedAt. pacientes is enamel-owned, so this is somebody else's schema decision and does not belong on a terra form list. NEVER EXECUTED, measured 2026-09-11 by coder02-terra-cc and re-run by me. wi ls enamel returns 12 open rows; a case-insensitive match for provincia or localidad across BOTH boards returns ZERO. Six days on, neither field is named by any row anywhere, and TERRA-143 is the only place the decision is written down. A refile decided and never filed is indistinguishable from one filed and forgotten. WHY IT WAS NOT FILED ON ENAMEL'S BOARD, and this stands: an outsider-filed row with no owner in that lane is how a duplicate appears beside whatever they eventually write themselves. Elazar chose the destination; that lane chooses the shape. coder02-terra-cc declined to file there for that reason and routed it up instead, which was correct. WHY THERE IS NOBODY TO HAND IT TO. Enamel's board is alive and assigned - pm-enamel-cc, db-enamel-cc and coder-enamel-cc own rows on it - but NONE of those three is in the hub roster. roster() returns zero rows for each. The board has owners on paper and nobody home, which is a different failure from an unassigned backlog and should not be reported as one. WHAT CLOSES THIS ROW: a row existing on the enamel board that names provincia and localidad, filed by someone in that lane. Not a terra implementation, and terra must not add either field to its own forms in the meantime - that was the whole point of the refile. NOT COVERED: whether provincia and localidad already exist somewhere in enamel's own app or a table terra cannot read, which would make the refile moot. The 2026-09-05 pacientes column list is the only evidence and it is six days old. One look from inside that lane settles it; nothing from here can.
Activity
-
Blocked on the enamel lane existing. No agent of that lane is in the hub roster - pm-enamel-cc, db-enamel-cc and coder-enamel-cc each return zero rows - so there is no address to file the refile at, and filing it on their board from outside would manufacture the duplicate this row exists to avoid. Unblocks the moment any enamel agent registers: hand them the two field names and this row's reference, and close it when their own row exists. Nothing else is owed by terra. Escalated to Elazar 2026-09-11 as one of four things blocked on the same absent lane, not as its own fire. The others: TERRA-215 (the userEmails write path, work he already GO'd on 2026-09-08), the Data API / exposed-schema question, and ENAMEL-16's missing drain half.
-
REFILE EXECUTED. ENAMEL-31 exists on the enamel board, filed from inside that lane by coder-enamel-cc, titled "Decide whether shared pacientes carries provincia/localidad (refiled from terra, DCX-143-20260905)", assigned db-enamel-cc, blocked. Verified by me with wi ls enamel rather than taken from the message announcing it. PREMISE CHANGE BEHIND IT: coder-enamel-cc and db-enamel-cc registered on the hub ~07:45 ART today. The "board has owners on paper and nobody home" state that this row and eq 91 both rest on ended roughly an hour after I measured it. Worth stating plainly because I wrote that condition into three artifacts this morning and it was true when written and is not now. THE ONE UNCOVERED QUESTION IS ANSWERED AND IT IS NOT MOOT. This row said the 2026-09-05 pacientes column list was the only evidence and six days old. coder-enamel-cc swept information_schema across every schema in enamel's Supabase project for provincia, localidad, ciudad and direccion: ZERO columns, and public.pacientes matches the 2026-09-05 list exactly. So the refile was real work, not a duplicate of something already built. WHAT ENAMEL-31 WAITS ON: Elazar's disclosure ruling, because pacientes is shared and terra's PII-minimisation directive makes adding a field a ruling rather than a migration. It does not wait on a lane any more. CLOSING CONDITION MET AS WRITTEN. This row said it closes when a row exists on the enamel board naming provincia and localidad, filed by someone in that lane. That has happened. Terra owes nothing further and must still not add either field to its own forms. Leaving the close to coder-terra-cc, who owns this row; I am recording the evidence, not the status.
-
cleared: Blocked on the enamel lane existing. No agent of that lane is in the hub roster - pm-enamel-cc, db-enamel-cc and coder-enamel-cc each return zero rows - so there is no address to file the refile at, and filing it on their board from outside would manufacture the duplicate this row exists to avoid. Unblocks the moment any enamel agent registers: hand them the two field names and this row's reference, and close it when their own row exists. Nothing else is owed by terra. Escalated to Elazar 2026-09-11 as one of four things blocked on the same absent lane, not as its own fire. The others: TERRA-215 (the userEmails write path, work he already GO'd on 2026-09-08), the Data API / exposed-schema question, and ENAMEL-16's missing drain half.
-
Closed against ENAMEL-31, filed from inside the enamel lane 2026-09-11 by coder-enamel-cc, naming provincia and localidad and citing DCX-143-20260905. That is exactly what this row said would close it: a row on enamel's board, filed by someone in that lane. The one thing this row listed as NOT COVERED is settled by measurement rather than recall: an information_schema sweep of every schema in enamel's Supabase project for provincia/localidad/ciudad/direccion returns ZERO columns, and public.pacientes is identical to the 2026-09-05 list recorded here. The refile is not moot. ENAMEL-31 is blocked on Elazar's disclosure ruling - shared patient table, and terra's standing PII-minimisation directive is why it is a ruling rather than a migration - not on a missing lane. Terra owes nothing further, and terra still must NOT add either field to its own forms; that was the point of the refile.
-
CLOSING CONDITION MET. Marker: T216-enamel31-mtwuhq. This row's stated close condition was verbatim: a row existing on the enamel board that names provincia and localidad, filed by someone in that lane. ENAMEL-31 exists, filed 2026-09-11T10:59:28Z by coder-enamel-cc from inside the lane, assigned db-enamel-cc, titled 'Decide whether shared pacientes carries provincia/localidad (refiled from terra, DCX-143-20260905)'. Read the row myself rather than taking the report. IT ALSO CLOSES THIS ROW'S ONE EXPLICITLY UNCOVERED QUESTION, which I could not answer from here: whether the two fields already exist in enamel's own schema, which would make the refile moot. ENAMEL-31 records an information_schema sweep of EVERY schema in enamel's Supabase project for provincia, localidad, ciudad and direccion returning ZERO columns, and public.pacientes unchanged from the 2026-09-05 list. The refile is not moot. ENAMEL-31 is blocked on Elazar's disclosure ruling - whether the shared pacientes record carries those columns at all - which is the correct shape: a co-tenanted patient table plus terra's PII-minimisation directive makes it a ruling before it is a migration. That is their row's blocker, not terra's obligation. Terra still must not add either field to its own forms. The enamel lane registered on the hub at 10:46Z today (coder-enamel-cc and db-enamel-cc, both live, verified in the roster by me). So this row's blockedReason - 'blocked on the enamel lane existing' - is also discharged.
-
Closed on db-enamel-cc's ENAMEL-31 ruling (2026-09-11): shared pacientes does NOT carry provincia/localidad, decision NO, no migration was ever written so nothing is held. Terra must not add provincia/localidad to its own forms on the strength of this - a terra-only need is answered on a terra-owned table. Reversal condition lives verbatim on ENAMEL-31: a NAMED informe/export/workflow that cannot be produced without those fields ON THE SHARED record, filed as a new row citing ENAMEL-31.