TEAMS.md §5.4, §5.5.7 (new), §5.6 and the Part 12 phase entry; BACKEND_DESIGN.md's
schema and admin route tables.
**The largest change is a decision, not a description.** §5.6's first rule said
"a leader may also see and act on reports for their own Team, but staff always
receive them". The org lead settled on 2026-08-18 that the leader half is
**decided against, not deferred**: the gap the section exists to close is that
leaders moderate their own forum and a Team's leaders are exactly the people who
will not report their own Team, so a leader-visible queue hands a complaint about
a leader back to them — and a read-only leader view still tells them who reported
what. Recorded as an amendment rather than by editing the sentence away, because
the reasoning for the original is what makes the correction legible.
**§5.6's `content_reports` DDL does not work as written, and the amendment says so
rather than quietly swapping it.** With `status` in the unique key, CLOSED rows
collide with each other: dismiss a report, let the behaviour recur, dismiss the
second one, and the UPDATE lands on a tuple that already exists — so the queue
starts throwing duplicate-key errors on the first repeat reporter. The shipped
table keys on a generated `open_marker`, the same encoding
`team_forum_grants.active_marker` uses. Three smaller departures are recorded
beside it: `handled_note`, the two username snapshots §2.10 asks for everywhere
else, and a real CASCADE on `team_id`.
**New §5.5.7 for `teams_forum_edit_window_minutes`** (0–1440, default 15), and the
rule under it: the window is resolved on the server TWICE — the read path stamps
`canEdit`/`editableUntil` so a client knows whether to draw the control, the write
re-derives it from `created_at` before allowing anything. The read is advice and
the write is enforcement, because a time-bounded permission must not take its
clock from the party it bounds. That is also why the key is not published: the
client needing the number is the admin screen, and the client needing the decision
already has it per post.
**§5.4 gains three notes its route table does not carry**: thread creation splits
authority by TYPE rather than widening the leader gate (and reports it as two
booleans, since one would make a client guess which right it described); post
moderation is its own route whose validator accepts all eight actions so the model
can say "pin applies to a thread, not to a post"; and a reply's three refusal codes
are chosen to be distinguishable — 404 absent, 400 announcement, 409 locked — with
locked refusing staff too.
The Part 12 entry records what the phase disproved, its four acceptance criteria,
that it spans ONE repo where phase 4 needed two, and the single defect the live rig
found. It also notes that phase 4 shipped `uploads` with the default off, so §5.6's
"pull reports forward if uploads is enabled anywhere" never triggered.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
wtclaude
aed4ec4166