[danielgorgonha]

What & why

A device is more careful with a payment it already signed: it asks before signing a payment again in more cases, recognises the same payment when it comes back under another proposal (and quotes when it signed it, from its own record), shows an earlier transaction only when it can confirm it signed it, and proposals are signed only from their signing panel. The sign-again confirm also wraps on narrow screens, keeps focus when it closes by itself, and names its copy button.

Why one piece (over the 300-line guide)

It is one rule: whether a device may contribute a share to a payment it already signed. That rule spans the device's record, the owner's consent, the confirm screen and the standalone /net page. Splitting it would ship a state in which one of those contradicts the rule, which is exactly what the reviews of this change caught twice while it was built. More than half of the lines are tests.

Verify-before-finishing checklist

• cargo fmt --check + cargo clippy -- -D warnings: not applicable (no Rust change)
• cargo test: not applicable
• ui/: lint + vitest (264 files, 3061 tests) + tsc pass
• No secret, key share, seed, or passphrase in code, logs, URLs, or query strings
• Every fund-moving path keeps preview + explicit confirmation
• Touches the device's signing path: security impact considered (security, code, test, design and accessibility reviews)
• User-facing strings go through i18n (English keys + PT-BR locale)
• Docs/comments in English; commits are type(scope): description
• AI disclosure: written with Claude Code (the change, the tests, and the review runs); the commits carry Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>, no session link

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
konclave-demo	Ready	Preview	Nov 13, 2026 12:03pm UTC