test/issueflow-reconcile.test.sh

@@ -945,6 +945,25 @@ check "an hour-old claim does not silence a ruling 9 days quiet" 0 "" \
 check "...and the fresh assignment is not reclaim bait either" 1 "" \
   grep -q 'reclaimed' <<<"$claimed_fresh"
 
+# The claimed branch's top read, pinned. `claimed` + `needs-ruling` with no
+# assignee is the one composition where this branch posts BEFORE the ruling
+# block: `claim_decision` returns FLAG_UNASSIGNED and the
+# `claimed-unassigned` comment goes out, so a ruling clock read down there
+# would date the issue by the sweep's own writing and buy the escalation
+# another 7 quiet days — the #274 hazard, on the very branch #284 D6 exists
+# to hold. Probe 101 does not reach it: it carries an assignee and an open
+# PR. One sweep, both outputs — the board diagnostic and the nudge it must
+# not silence — because asserting only the nudge would pass with the
+# diagnostic silently gone. Reds the moment the top read drifts below the
+# post, and the deletion of that read is what proved it (#284 D6, #307).
+ruling_quiet 110
+timeline_add 110 assigned 3600
+unassigned_flag="$(issue_probe 110 $'claimed\nneeds-ruling' 0 false)"
+check "an unassigned claim under a ruling still draws its board flag" 0 "1" \
+  grep -cF '<!-- issueflow:claimed-unassigned -->' "$TMP/posted-110"
+check "...and the ruling nudge fires beside it, undated by it" 0 "" \
+  grep -q 'ruling nudge' <<<"$unassigned_flag"
+
 # The clock rule alone, no assignee in the way: an assigned/unassigned pair
 # in the timeline is the claim's history, not activity toward the ruling.
 ruling_quiet 102