A valid chain can still have a hole in it

Measured against real production history while validating the ancestry
surface: `aj ewing / total_bases / over / 0.5` on 2026-08-28 carries a valid
ORIGIN from the 18:10 cohort AND a row from the 19:03 cohort that was stamped
for publication and never recorded an action.

The chain is genuinely valid and the partial row is correctly excluded from it
— that part of the contract held. But answering LINEAGE_AVAILABLE and nothing
else presents an incomplete chronology as a complete one, which is the exact
failure this surface exists to make visible, one grain finer than a whole Read.

The response now carries `chronology_complete` and `unrecorded_publications`.
The state is unchanged, because the chain that exists really is valid; what
changes is that the gap is disclosed instead of smoothed over.

Suite 397/5,498/0.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CQJeAG8vcDoL5zkiaJyVb8

src/services/read/readAncestry.js

@@ -136,9 +136,22 @@ function classifyAncestry(rows) {
     });
   }
   const recaptures = chain.filter((r) => r.lineage_action === readLineage.LINEAGE_ACTION.RECAPTURE);
+  // A VALID CHAIN CAN STILL HAVE A HOLE IN IT.
+  //
+  // Measured on production: `aj ewing / total_bases / over / 0.5` on 2026-08-28
+  // carries a valid ORIGIN from the 18:10 cohort AND a row from the 19:03
+  // cohort that was stamped for publication and never recorded an action. The
+  // chain is genuinely valid and the partial row is correctly excluded from it
+  // — but answering LINEAGE_AVAILABLE alone would present an incomplete
+  // chronology as a complete one. The gap is disclosed instead of smoothed
+  // over; it is the same failure this surface exists to make visible, just at
+  // a finer grain than a whole Read.
+  const unrecorded = attempted.filter((r) => !isValidAction(r)).length;
   return Object.freeze({
     state: ANCESTRY_STATE.LINEAGE_AVAILABLE,
     reason: null,
+    chronology_complete: unrecorded === 0,
+    unrecorded_publications: unrecorded,
     read_id: chron.read_id,
     read_natural_key: chain[0].read_natural_key,
     revision_count: chron.revision_count,

tests/unit/lineageProductization.test.js

@@ -446,6 +446,27 @@ describe('ancestry surface tells the truth about what it has', () => {
     expect(p.claim_digest).toBe('d0');
   });
 
+  test('a valid chain with a stamped-but-unrecorded sibling discloses the hole', () => {
+    // The production shape: one good ORIGIN plus a later publication that was
+    // attempted and never recorded. The chain stays valid and the partial row
+    // stays out of it, but the answer must not claim the chronology is whole.
+    const out = ancestry.classifyAncestry([
+      act({ id: 1, publication_id: 'p1' }),
+      { id: 2, publication_id: 'p2', read_natural_key: 'k' },
+    ]);
+    expect(out.state).toBe(A.LINEAGE_AVAILABLE);
+    expect(out.revisions).toHaveLength(1);
+    expect(out.revisions[0].snapshot_row_id).toBe(1);   // the partial is excluded
+    expect(out.chronology_complete).toBe(false);
+    expect(out.unrecorded_publications).toBe(1);
+  });
+
+  test('a chain with no unrecorded siblings is complete', () => {
+    const out = ancestry.classifyAncestry([act({ id: 1, publication_id: 'p1' })]);
+    expect(out.chronology_complete).toBe(true);
+    expect(out.unrecorded_publications).toBe(0);
+  });
+
   test('nothing found is NOT_FOUND, which is not an absence of lineage', () => {
     expect(ancestry.classifyAncestry([]).state).toBe(A.NOT_FOUND);
   });