docs(backlog): file #1441, the WARNING+ PHI-filter bypass in non-serve CLI subcommands

[wshallwshall]

Files BACKLOG #1441. Ledger row only -- no engine code changes, no test files.

The defect

logging.lastResort carries filters=[] and formatter=None. Two of the CLI's 32 subcommands install a root logging handler (serve, supervise); the other 30 run with an empty root handler list, so the standard library services their records through lastResort. That bypasses RedactionFilter, CredentialQueryScrubFilter and ControlCharScrubFilter -- the three filters logging_setup._install_phi_filters puts on every configured handler.

Stated in the conditional per CLAUDE.md section 0: there are zero deployments, so nothing is leaking. What is wrong is the code -- a PHI-safety control the serve path has does not exist in 30 sibling processes.

Measured, with controls

Every reading has a paired control that fires, so an absence is distinguishable from a clean result.

arm	root.handlers	WARNING output
as shipped, real messagefoundry backup path	[]	synthetic PID segment and full traceback verbatim
control, configure_logging first	[StreamHandler] + 3 filters	PID|[redacted] in message and traceback

A real messagefoundry backup run holds root.handlers == [] throughout and loads 18 WARNING+ traceback sites. Negative control: 19 DEBUG/INFO exc_info sites are dropped, not leaked, because lastResort.level is WARNING.

Synthetic HL7 only, per section 9.

Re-verified before landing

Measured at 46ea10a78, re-verified at a2eef0f37 because main moved 58 commits in between and both measured files changed (__main__.py +264, logging_setup.py +113). All counts unchanged.

One claim did go stale in that window and was corrected rather than left standing: #1199's fix landed as 99887f5a4 (#820) and an earlier draft said it was not on main. Re-checked -- ensure_logger_sink is per-logger, never appears in __main__.py, and does not close this gap. The row records that as a method note.

Scope

Files the item only. No fix, by instruction. The row weighs both candidate remedies and records honestly that remedy (1) -- configure logging in main() -- empties caplog for the 6 test files that use it, of 40 asserting on captured CLI output. Measured as a paired test.

Checks run

ledger_check (with a firing negative control on an unallocated number), backlog_status_check, link_check, and the full pre-commit set on the changed file. All pass. No test file added, so tests/tooling_manifest.txt does not apply.

Number allocated atomically with scripts/coord/alloc.ps1 from this worktree.

Related: #1054, #1055 (same class, both shipped), #1199 (same premise, opposite consequence).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

@wshallwshall

This pull request is green and nobody has marked it read.

Every check that has reported is passing and the reviewed label is absent, so
a reviewer has read this is the only thing between it and a merge. Nothing else reports that, which is
why this comment exists (BACKLOG #1413).

To clear it, IN THIS ORDER:

1. If the branch is behind main, update it FIRST: gh pr update-branch --repo MEFORORG/MessageFoundry 850.
   That push fires synchronize, and synchronize REMOVES the reviewed label. Labelling
   before updating throws the label away and costs a round trip.
2. Read the diff.
3. gh pr edit 850 --repo MEFORORG/MessageFoundry --add-label reviewed

DO NOT TRIAGE THIS FROM mergeStateStatus. It returns one value with precedence, so BEHIND,
DIRTY and UNSTABLE each mask the missing check -- the requirement is invisible until you act on
something else. This check never reads that field; see scripts/ci/check_unread_prs.py.

A seat can find every pull request in this state in one call: gh pr list --label unread.
The label is withdrawn automatically once this pull request leaves the state.

The reviewed label is a PROCESS gate. It records that a step happened. It does not
establish that an independent party looked, and nothing here should be read as saying it does.

[wshallwshall]

Superseded by #940, which merged at 11:52 CT as 89b2574c. This pull request's row (BACKLOG #1441) is on main now, byte-identical to what was filed here.

Closed by the Lander, not rejected. Eight ledger-only pull requests were consolidated into one so that nine filings cost one merge cycle rather than eight. Under strict branch protection each of these would have re-dirtied the other seven.

The consolidation merged each branch rather than cherry-picking, so every number arrived carried by a real merge parent, and it re-applied only this branch's own sections onto main's current file. That mattered: taking any of these branches wholesale would have silently reverted #1426, #1440, #1454, #1455 and #1456. Final state verified at 443 rows against a target computed before building, 678 additions and zero deletions, no duplicate numbers.

Nothing here needs re-filing.