feat(eval): --dump-answers artifact for the answer-quality eval (E-3c PR-A)

[BigSimmo]

Summary

First of the three E-3c PRs (instrument → short-circuit → figure-aware selection). The run-#58 targeting misses ("no dose figure/regimen", "no schedule/interval") cannot be diagnosed without the actual answer texts — and answers are deliberately not retained at rest (privacy design). This PR adds --dump-answers <path> to eval:answer-quality: per-case {id, question, intent, route, routing_reason, grounded, confidence, citation_count, targeting verdict, answer text, sections} JSON written into the canary artifact directory at eval time.

• Default off; --json summary output byte-identical; confirmation line only in human mode (the --json-out convention).
• parseArgs / buildAnswerDumpRecord exported behind an import.meta main-guard (the eval-quality.ts precedent) so tests import without executing the provider-backed eval.
• The canary's targeting step now passes the flag, so every future answer_quality_eval=true dispatch — including the E-4 pair — yields the texts. Content sensitivity matches the existing tee'd log: all-public corpus, no env values.

The ledger row also records the accepted E-3c design (PR-B: pre-generation validated-extractive short-circuit generalizing the existing LAI pattern, net ~−110 rag.ts lines; PR-C: intent-figure-aware lead promotion with a claim-support nuke-proofing guard).

RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — measurement instrument only; no runtime answer path touched.

Verification

• New tests/eval-answer-quality.test.ts — 4/4 (flag parsing incl. default-off + --json independence; dump-record shape incl. missing-text tolerance)
• npm run typecheck, npm run check:github-actions, npm run check:ci-scope, eval-canary workflow test, prettier — all clean
• No provider calls in this PR

Risk and rollout

• Risk: minimal — an opt-in file write in an eval script plus one workflow arg; the eval's exit code and stdout are unchanged.
• Rollback: revert.
• Provider or production effects: none from this diff; the flag only takes effect on explicitly-dispatched canary runs.

Clinical Governance Preflight

• Source-backed claims still require linked source verification before clinical use — no behaviour change
• No patient-identifiable document workflow was introduced or expanded — dump content is eval-fixture questions + answers over the all-public corpus, artifact-scoped (30-day retention)
• Supabase target remains Clinical KB Database (sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy) — no access changes
• Service-role keys and private document access remain server-only
• Demo/synthetic content remains clearly separated from real clinical sources
• Source metadata, review status, and outdated/unknown-source behavior remain conservative
• Deployment classification/TGA SaMD impact was checked: no clinical decision-support behaviour changed — measurement only

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01EXsJcLrbZUXwnBeG91cVo9

---

Generated by Claude Code

[supabase]

This pull request has been ignored for the connected project sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy because there are no changes detected in supabase directory. You can change this behaviour in Project Integrations Settings ↗︎.

---

Preview Branches by Supabase.
Learn more about Supabase Branching ↗︎.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@BigSimmo, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 32 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 65636190-679f-4f19-8ba3-82ce6012e207

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 49ae361 and 9e1ee93.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• .github/workflows/eval-canary.yml
• docs/branch-review-ledger.md
• scripts/eval-answer-quality.ts
• tests/eval-answer-quality.test.ts

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch claude/clinical-kb-pwa-review-asi3wb

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.