Two new frontend features

[RFOxbury]

• button to "report issue" - free text input that gets saved to the database
• a toggle flag (literally a little red flag) so that users can flag if a source is not relevant.

Behind the scenes, there is also a new table in the database called user_feedback. This table records (a) text recorded via the "report issue" button; (b) which sources have been flagged irrelevant

What / why

Task: docs/tasks/<task-id>/

Proof it works

Evidence lives in docs/tasks/<task-id>/verification.md — summarise here, don't duplicate the table.

• make verify: pass / fail / stub
• Manual / end-to-end: what was exercised + the exact command (or link to verification.md)

Risk tier

Tier N — why.

Tier	Review
0–1	tests + AI review or human skim
2	contract verifier + tests + human review
3	+ security + adversarial review + human deep review
4	+ human-approved plan + ADR + rollback plan

AI role

Review focus

Correctness · missed requirements · security · provenance integrity · scope creep · over-abstraction.

Reviews run

Findings recorded in verification.md.

• Contract verifier
• /code-review
• /security-review
• Adversarial review (Tier 2+)
• /simplify

Known gaps & deferred seams

Public safety

• No secrets, credentials, or real/acquired source text in the diff or evidence.
• Logs / traces / screenshots are public-safe.
• No approval-gated change (schema · auth · runtime egress · deps · CI · prod config · public interface · scaffold) snuck in unapproved. (Runtime egress = the running product reaching search/model providers with project data; agent/dev-time lookups, MCP and installs are fine.)