fix(queue): surface a finding when capture-unobtainable degrades the screenshot-table gate

[bitfathers94]

fix(queue): surface a finding when capture-unobtainable degrades the screenshot-table gate

maybeAddScreenshotTableAdvisoryFinding always early-returned once the configured
action wasn't "advisory", so a close/block gate that #9881 degraded to advisory
enforcement never actually produced the advisory finding its own comments claimed
it would. The degrade was silently swallowed: no close, no hold, and no visible
notice for the maintainer either.

Thread captureUnobtainable into the finding builder and only skip it when the
action isn't advisory AND enforcement wasn't degraded. On a degraded gate, append
the finding with the maintainer-facing remedy alongside the gate's own reason.
Extract the headSha/visualCaptureUnobtainableSha conjunction into a shared helper
so the enforcement and advisory call sites can't evaluate the same fact differently.

Closes #10060

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-31 10:40:55 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI failing · unstable

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

Review summary
This threads the already-defined `captureUnobtainable` fact into `maybeAddScreenshotTableAdvisoryFinding` so a close/block gate degraded by #9881 now produces an advisory finding instead of vanishing silently, and factors the headSha/visualCaptureUnobtainableSha conjunction into a shared `screenshotCaptureUnobtainableForHead` helper used at both `evaluateScreenshotTableGate` call sites so they can't diverge. The early-return guard (`action !== "advisory" && !args.captureUnobtainable`) correctly lets only the degraded non-advisory path fall through, and `enforcementDegraded` is derived from `result.enforcementDegradedReason !== undefined` which matches `evaluateScreenshotTableGate`'s existing contract (per the reference excerpt, that field is only set on a violated+captureUnobtainable result). Test coverage is thorough and exercises the real call path (close/block/advisory × captureUnobtainable true/false), including a regression test pinned to the exact reported defect.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• codecov/patch is at 83.33% against a 99% target — worth checking which changed branch in `maybeAddScreenshotTableAdvisoryFinding` (e.g. the `enforcementDegraded === false` arm alongside `action === "advisory"`) is missing a direct test even though the overall behavior is well covered by the added suite.
• src/queue/processors.ts:8772 — the long explanatory comment block above `maybeAddScreenshotTableAdvisoryFinding` is dense; consider trimming to just the non-obvious invariant (why `action !== "advisory"` reaching past the guard always means degraded) since the rest restates what the code already shows.
• If patch coverage stays under target, add a direct assertion for the `enforcementDegraded` false/advisory-true branch distinct from the `captureUnobtainable: false` case already tested, to close the coverage gap explicitly.
• Consider a short JSDoc line on `screenshotCaptureUnobtainableForHead` pointing readers to `evaluateScreenshotTableGate`'s `captureUnobtainable` param doc so the shared-invariant intent is discoverable from either side.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

CI checks failing

• codecov/patch — 83.33% of diff hit (target 99.00%)

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#10060
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	⚠️ 12/25	Preflight needs author follow-up before maintainer review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 119 registered-repo PR(s), 82 merged, 3 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bitfathers94; Gittensor profile; 119 PR(s), 3 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff extends maybeAddScreenshotTableAdvisoryFinding to accept captureUnobtainable, changes the early return to fire only when action isn't advisory AND enforcement wasn't degraded, appends a finding combining the gate's reason with CAPTURE_UNOBTAINABLE_REASON, and wires both call sites (3572 enforcement, 12119 advisory) through a shared screenshotCaptureUnobtainableForHead helper so they can't

Review context

• Author: bitfathers94
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 119 PR(s), 3 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Then work through the remaining 3 steps in the Signals table above.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

Decision record

• action: hold · clause: success
• config: 6cc06301946da318138766ca9195c1a9f3f1617b22ce0b6c06418110802c7f4c · pack: oss-anti-slop · ci: failed
• note: diverted by the randomized close-audit holdout (calibration: randomized ε-holdout on would-close PRs with propensity logging #8831) — the deterministic pipeline would otherwise have closed this PR
• record: 3e69895e7d9224141faec84483fc3c74d4a17e04c73e2d41c09dccaf266a2d5d (schema v6, head 2798e35)

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.22%. Comparing base (9383b83) to head (2798e35).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/queue/processors.ts	83.33%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10157       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   92.21%   81.22%   -10.99%     
===========================================
  Files         931      283      -648     
  Lines      114048    62218    -51830     
  Branches    27543     8242    -19301     
===========================================
- Hits       105165    50535    -54630     
- Misses       7584    11271     +3687     
+ Partials     1299      412      -887     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	94.61% <83.33%> (-1.07%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/queue/processors.ts	94.61% <83.33%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 780 files with indirect coverage changes

[JSONbored]

Failing CI, closing.