fix(card): a returning user's standing rule is the one they committed to, not this period's prescription (closes #645)

docs/output-contract.md

@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ never silent omission.
 | 3 strengths + hole | engine diagnosis present | one-line note |
 | 3 `[v]` amplify row | an `amplify` / `amplify_hypothesis` / `selection_inconclusive` prescription exists (strongest one only, in that order) | panel renders with the strength line alone |
 | 3 `[?]` pattern panel | an unjudged pattern fired (today: `sold_winner_early` tags on ≥1 instrument) **and** the review did not queue the answerable `exit_consistency` question about it | omit the panel — either nothing fired, or the question already carries the facts answerably |
-| 4 next step | always — restates the standing rule only when a persisted `prior_commitment` is on record; a review with none (a first review, or any later one whose most recent finalize set none) states the recommendation as pending instead (#546) | — |
+| 4 next step | always — restates the standing rule only when a persisted `prior_commitment` is on record (#546) **and** its own `dim` and this period's `rule_dim` are proven to name the same dimension (#645); a review with no persisted commitment (a first review, or any later one whose most recent finalize set none), and one whose commitment carries no comparable `dim`, state the recommendation as pending instead; a proven divergence gets its own line naming both | — |
 | 4 rule targets | the commitment carries a `dim` and that dimension has per-position facts (`risk_weights` over the cap; per-ticker averaging-down counts) | fall back to the aggregate `#248` grounding sentence; never leave the rule unanchored |
 | 4 trade-off line | the rule's dimension shrinks a position (`position_sizing` / `diversification`) **and** the card carries an `amplify` row | omit the line — an unconditional one is caveat noise |
 | snapshot route | suppresses history-performance modules by design (`card_renderer.py:1411`) | Block 1 = position-structure baseline only |
@@ -338,3 +338,4 @@ LLM judge and dogfood verdicts: structure is mechanical, prose is judged.
 | 2026-07-24 | [#382](https://github.com/atomchung/fomo-kernel/issues/382) | **The #361 row above's "zero clipped subs" measurement did not hold at every width the layout supports.** #361 measured 520/760px; #382 (independently reproduced, then re-measured against the shipped #363 fix) found the pnl and payoff tiles' subs still clip at 320-390px once realized/unrealized or win/loss reach 5-6 digits — the README's own headline magnitudes (`+$138,058`, realized `$19,000`, unrealized `$119,058`). The alpha tile's own sub, the third tile #382 found clipping, was already fixed by #363's unrelated interval-placement change (confirmed by re-measuring 30 combinations against the shipped `9923be3`: never clips). What was missing was the mechanism §1 names: a rule that bounds the cell's height (R2) is not a rule that bounds its *content* to that height — nothing had measured whether the copy actually fits at the narrowest supported width, in both locales, at realistic magnitudes, so the fixtures behind every prior "zero clipped subs" claim used 3-digit amounts (`avg_win: 140`, `total_pnl: -300`) that were never close to the cap. Two independent fixes, gated at the point each stops being sufficient: `kpi.payoff_sub` drops its redundant leading qualifier in both locales (en "Average", zh-TW "average") — the tile's own label already says the figure is realized, so the word was doing no work — and fits both locales down to 320px unmodified, no change to the money format. `kpi.pnl_sub` needed more: even after dropping the equivalent leading word the way payoff did, a 5-6 digit realized/unrealized pair still does not fit two-up in the ~84px-wide sub at 320-360px no matter how the surrounding words are trimmed — the figures themselves are wider than the slot. A new `_money_compact()` (card_renderer.py) rounds to the nearest thousand only once `abs(value) >= 10000` (e.g. `+$119k`), leaving anything smaller — including a genuinely small account's real `+$200` — at full precision, so a small gain can never misprint as `+$0k`; only the HTML tile's `.sub` reads through it, `_performance_items`'s Markdown mirror of the same sentence keeps full `_display_money` precision, since Markdown has no line-clamp to work around. en's final template (`{realized}, {unrealized} unrealized`) goes one step further and drops the leading "realized" word too — the number stays, first and unlabeled, following the realized-first order convention `pnl_lines.total` already establishes elsewhere in this catalog — while "unrealized" keeps its explicit label, since that is the figure a caveat actually attaches to (the card's own lede: "almost all of it is held and never sold"). zh-TW did not need that second cut: its pnl_sub keeps both the "already realized" and "not yet realized" words at full sentence structure, unchanged, once their two figures compact to "k" — its shorter, denser glyphs afford the fuller sentence at the same compacted-figure width where en's could not. Measured (design-guidelines §4 step 7) with a real viewport resize, not `--window-size` (the same ~500px floor #363's row above recorded): both templates, at the values above, clear `scrollHeight<=clientHeight` **and** `scrollWidth<=clientWidth` (a single unspaced token can overflow the box sideways instead of wrapping, which a height-only check misses — caught one false pass here) at en 320/360/390px and zh-TW 320/360px, row spread 0 throughout — the narrowest width each locale was reported broken at. Known residual, out of the issue's own measured scope: zh-TW's pnl sub still clips at 300px, one step past the 320px this ruling and the issue both measured; closing it would cost zh-TW its own explicit "already realized" label, the same trade en already made, and nothing reported 300px as broken. Enforced by `test_pnl_and_payoff_tile_subs_fit_the_two_line_cap_at_narrow_widths` (design-guidelines §7), hardcoded literals across three magnitude cases (large, the pre-#382 small fixture, and a negative-unrealized sign check) so the pin cannot compare the catalog against itself. Persona-sweep byte-parity drifts on 92 of 156 rendered `.private.md` files; every drifting line is the two wording changes above with the underlying figures unchanged (verified by extracting and comparing every number on every changed line against baseline) — no mock persona's realized/unrealized reaches the $10,000 compaction threshold, so that path is exercised only by the new pinned test, not the sweep, the same gap #363's row above recorded for its own change. |
 | 2026-07-30 | [#623](https://github.com/atomchung/fomo-kernel/issues/623) | **A card sentence that names a reward must attach a way to claim it, or say plainly that there is none.** A sweep of `copy/*.json`'s `block_missing` found five strings sharing the shape #357's fifth recurrence was diagnosed from ("telling me to add it on the finished card leaves me nowhere to act on it"), in three classes needing three different fixes. **Invitations** (`snapshot_unlock`, `rule_structural`) now name the one answer this user's book cannot reach — "whether your selling costs you more than your buying" — instead of a parenthetical feature catalogue ("win rate, payoff ratio, averaging-down discipline, and more"). The governing rule is [#617](https://github.com/atomchung/fomo-kernel/issues/617)'s, stated once in `references/decision-framing.md` and routed to from `references/card-policy.md` rather than restated, because two surfaces disagreeing about what an invitation owes is its own defect; at most one per card, and none at all on a complete behavioral review, which is asserted as its own counterweight (a manufactured invitation is the same defect as a manufactured disclosure). **A disclosure with a product path** (`annualized_reconciliation`) names the path inline in the user's own terms — "Share your current holdings view and the difference can be settled" — beside the number it explains, never promoted into the closing block, which would put two invitations on one card. **The price-blocked strings** (`annualized_prices`, `vs_market_prices`) were not a copy problem at all: `flows/first-review.md` step 0 already requires recovery before a degraded card is delivered, so that sentence reaching a user is evidence a required step was skipped — indistinguishable, until now, from sources that genuinely publish nothing. `review_plan.input.price_feed.recovery` records which happened and the shared draft path refuses the unattempted one, clearable by doing the step or by declaring the dead end with `prepare --prices-unavailable "<sources checked>"`. Net line count on every affected card is unchanged: no Note was added, and no sentence became a second paragraph. The other 12 `block_missing` strings honestly report a non-computable result with no user action available and are deliberately untouched. |
 | 2026-07-31 | [#546](https://github.com/atomchung/fomo-kernel/issues/546) | **The pre-commitment preview claimed a standing rule "remains" on a review with no persisted commitment to restate.** Block 4's no-commitment branch (`card_renderer.py`'s `_next_block`) resolved `state.rule_dim` — this period's fresh prescription — into `block_missing.rule_standing` ("the standing rule remains: …") without checking whether a prior commitment was ever recorded. Because `cmd_preview` always drafts with `require_commitment=False`, this branch fires on every preview before the user has chosen, not only a first-ever review. Fixed by gating the wrapper on the same `review_plan.state_snapshot.prior_commitment.rule` predicate `_reconciliation_lines` already reads for #292: with a real prior commitment on record, the standing-rule copy is unchanged; with none, a new key (`block_missing.rule_pending`, en "No rule chosen yet this period; the recommendation is: …", each locale phrased natively rather than translated word-for-word, synchronized across `en`/`zh-TW`/`zh-CN`) states the same `{rule}` as a recommendation awaiting the user's choice, replacing rather than adding a sentence (net card line count unchanged). Both renderers share the branch through `_card_structure`, including Markdown's compact text-first scan (`_read_first_panels`, which quotes this same panel, so there is no second mirror to update). `tests/persona_sweep.py --baseline` against pre-fix `main` drifted exactly 12 of 156 rendered Markdown cards and 12 of 156 HTML cards — every one a `.first.preview` (or, for the `rotator` persona, a `.second.preview` whose own first review also set no commitment) switching from the standing to the pending wrapper, and nothing else. |
+| 2026-07-31 | [#645](https://github.com/atomchung/fomo-kernel/issues/645) | **The standing-rule line named this period's prescription, not the rule the user actually committed to.** The row above gated *whether* Block 4 claims continuity and left the quoted rule resolved once, from `state.rule_dim`, inside both wrappers — so a returning user with a real persisted commitment read "No rule change this period; the standing rule remains: …" followed by a rule they never chose, with the false quote standing as the evidence for the false claim. `rule_dim` is `actionable[0].dim`, this period's top prescription, and has no input from `prior_commitment`; the two diverge whenever the book's leading problem changes, which is the ordinary case across weeks. Fixed per the owner's 2026-07-31 ruling (option 2): the persisted commitment is the only record of what is standing, so it is what gets quoted, and continuity is claimed only when the commitment's own `dim` and `state.rule_dim` are *proven* to name the same dimension. That identity already existed and no new state was added — `review._candidate_rules` stamps the canonical `dimension_id` on every candidate row and `_resolve_commitment` carries it into the stored commitment (`schemas/answers.schema.json`'s `commitment.dim`) — and both sides normalize through `card_renderer.dimension_id` because a stored commitment holds the canonical id while `rule_dim` holds the legacy label. A proven divergence replaces the continuity sentence with one new key (`block_missing.rule_diverged`, en "The standing rule is still \"{standing}\"; this period's leading issue is a different one, so \"{recommendation}\" stays a recommendation until you choose it.", each locale phrased natively, synchronized across `en`/`zh-TW`/`zh-CN`) — still one paragraph replacing one paragraph, so net card line count is unchanged. A commitment carrying no comparable `dim` fails safe onto the existing `rule_pending` wrapper rather than guessing: `_slot_commitment` drops the field from a condition slot deliberately and a custom rule need not carry one, and `session.PKEY` maps `metric_key` into a *problem* namespace (`oversize`, `concentration`, …) that is not the `rules` copy namespace `rule_dim` lives in, so inferring one from the other would be the heuristic matcher the ruling forbids. #546's `rule_pending` path is byte-stable and a first review is unaffected. Both renderers share the branch through `_card_structure`, including Markdown's compact text-first scan (`_read_first_panels`). `tests/persona_sweep.py --baseline` against pre-fix `main` drifted **zero** of 156 rendered Markdown cards and zero of 156 HTML cards: 8 persona `.second.preview` bundles reach the agreement arm and in every one the persisted rule text is already byte-identical to the prescription (the commitment was `candidate_0` on the same dimension), 4 more carry a commitment with no `rule_dim` to compare against and keep the generic line they already had, and no mock persona reaches the divergence arm at all — which is why the corpus never exposed this and the acceptance test carries its own diverging fixture. |

skills/fomo-kernel/copy/en.json

@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
     "rule": "No new rule commitment this time; you can pick one at the next review.",
     "rule_standing": "No rule change this period; the standing rule remains: \"{rule}\"",
     "rule_pending": "No rule chosen yet this period; the recommendation is: \"{rule}\"",
+    "rule_diverged": "The standing rule is still \"{standing}\"; this period's leading issue is a different one, so \"{recommendation}\" stays a recommendation until you choose it.",
     "rule_skip": "You chose not to set a new commitment; the same baseline remains available next time.",
     "rule_snapshot": "This opening check keeps the structural baseline without forcing a commitment.",
     "rule_structural": "This is an opening structural check: it sets a baseline without forcing a commitment. Too few closed trades here to say yet whether your selling costs you more than your buying; a file carrying the matching sells would settle that one question.",

skills/fomo-kernel/copy/zh-CN.json

@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
     "rule": "这次没有新的规矩承诺；下次复盘可再选一条。",
     "rule_standing": "这期不改规矩；现行规矩维持：“{rule}”",
     "rule_pending": "这期还没选规矩；建议是：“{rule}”",
+    "rule_diverged": "现行规矩仍是“{standing}”；这期最该处理的是另一件事，“{recommendation}”在你选定之前都只是建议。",
     "rule_skip": "你这次选择不设新承诺；下次仍可用同一份基线对账。",
     "rule_snapshot": "这次开场检查先保留结构基线，不强迫设定承诺。",
     "rule_structural": "这次是开场结构检查：先立基线、不硬塞承诺。已平仓的交易还太少，还看不出你的卖出是不是比买进更伤你；补上对应的卖出纪录就能回答这一题。",

skills/fomo-kernel/copy/zh-TW.json

@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
     "rule": "這次沒有新的規矩承諾；下次復盤可再選一條。",
     "rule_standing": "這期不改規矩；現行規矩維持：「{rule}」",
     "rule_pending": "這期還沒選規矩；建議是：「{rule}」",
+    "rule_diverged": "現行規矩仍是「{standing}」；這期最該處理的是另一件事，「{recommendation}」在你選定之前都只是建議。",
     "rule_skip": "你這次選擇不設新承諾；下次仍可用同一份基線對帳。",
     "rule_snapshot": "這次開場檢查先保留結構基線，不強迫設定承諾。",
     "rule_structural": "這次是開場結構檢查：先立基線、不硬塞承諾。已平倉的交易還太少，還看不出你的賣出是不是比買進更傷你；補上對應的賣出紀錄就能回答這一題。",