Review follow-ups on the presentation intent.
The card claimed any single-question request declaring the intent, then sent one
of two labels — so a producer offering a third option, or a multi-select batch,
lost answers the generic flow would have shown. That contradicts the intent's
own contract, so `planReviewOf` now claims only a binary single choice and
leaves everything else to the flow that can express it.
`ask()` also rejects a plan-review intent on a question with no `detail`: the
intent declares detail IS the plan, and without one a honouring UI asks the
user to approve something invisible. The client keeps its own fallback — it sits
downstream of a wire boundary — but the misconfiguration now fails at the asker.
`planReviewOf` stops being a value export of the client contract face (client
export discipline: pure helpers stay internal; the tests already import it
relatively), and the ui-question README fallback list, both languages, now
states every condition the code enforces.
The Web composer now renders a request that declares the `plan-review` intent
as its own surface: the waiting-approval card language — amber "Plan review"
strip, the plan as the scrolling markdown body, the question as the card's
accessible name — over one decision row of Chat about it / Refuse / Approve.
Gone from that surface are the 1/1 pager, the numbered radio rows, the custom
answer row, and Skip/Submit, which made approving a plan read as sitting an
exam.
Approve and Refuse answer with the asker's own option labels and keep its
descriptions as tooltips; Chat about it cancels the request so the composer
returns and the user can simply say what they want. Copy is bilingual under the
existing `question` namespace.
The shape choice lives inside the single composer entry rather than a second
chain registration, so the two surfaces cannot race the same carrier, and
`planReviewOf` falls back to the generic flow for any request it cannot render
as a card — the client sits downstream of a wire boundary and every request
must stay answerable.
Review follow-ups on the approval takeover:
The scroll region is now a tab stop (tabIndex + named role="group"). The
question composer's scroll body needs none — its option rows are focusable and
pull the container along — but this one holds nothing but text, so a
keyboard-only user could reach the buttons and never the command's tail, and
approve what they could not finish reading.
The action row's padding reproduces the 14px gap it had inside the body: the
flex gap of 6 plus its 8px top margin, neither of which reaches it now that the
row sits outside the scroll region. The resting card is unchanged again.
The approval panel replaces the InputBar while a sandbox escalation waits,
and its justification and command are unbounded model text. With no height
cap, a long command grew the card until the refuse/allow row went under the
fold: at 900x700 the action row's bottom landed at y=749, so the user could
read the request and not answer it.
Justification and command now scroll in one region capped at the same height
as the composer's draft area, with the amber strip and the action row outside
it. The cap is one value with two consumers — declared as
--dsh-composer-text-max-height on ConversationRoot's .composerSeat, the
composer chain's only shared ancestor — so the seat cannot cap its two states
differently. The card rebinds the l2 scrollbar pair like every other scrolling
surface on an elevated background.
Covered by a new web e2e scenario that drives the real composition (read-only
session, denied write, the model's escalation retry, answer clicked through
the panel) and measures the live panel at two viewport heights against the
composer's own cap, read off the textarea rather than hardcoded.
