docs(qa): retarget readonly-package-locks-studio writable contrast at duplicate route - #13607

Fixes #9788.

What

Retargets access-security.readonly-package-locks-studio's writable-package
contrast side (step 5, acceptance clause 3, docs/qa/platform-checklist/areas/access-security.json)
at the platform's supported runtime path, per the maintainer ruling on #9788
(2026-08-19, verbatim: 「接受你的所有建议」; reaffirmed 2026-08-25, 「其他接受」):
the stock showcase does not boot with a project-scoped writable package.
The runner instead clones the showcase base into a writable target via
POST /packages/:id/duplicate (ADR-0070 D4 "duplicate base") to get the
writable object this item's contrast clause needs, then repeats the packaged
object's PUT against it.

This is the second and last of the two mechanical retargets the ruling
calls for — the first (automation.rollup-summary-filter) already landed
as PR #11913. With both items retargeted, #9788's full scope is done.

Changes to the item:

• steps — step 5 now names the duplicate-route call instead of the
  unqualified "a WRITABLE (draft/app-local) object."
• acceptance clause 3 — retargeted wording; oracle stays api on both
  sides of the gate, unchanged.
• Added a fixtures block (the item had none before) with a requires entry
  citing the duplicate route explicitly.
• Added source entries citing the duplicate route
  (packages/runtime/src/domains/packages.ts) and ADR-0070 §D4.
• revision 2 → 3, with a history entry recording the retarget and its
  rationale.

Deliberately NOT copied from the sibling half (PR #11913, bb62d4d08):
this item never carried a blocked: {by: "fixture", ...} block or a matching
fixtures.knownGaps line — those exist only on the automation item, which
had been explicitly fixture-blocked since #3358. This item's writable side
was instead left as an unqualified phrase ("a WRITABLE (draft/app-local)
object") with no fixture blocker to remove. So this PR adds a fixtures
block rather than editing one, and there is no blocked/knownGaps pair to
strip.

Verified before writing

• POST /packages/:id/duplicate exists (packages/runtime/src/domains/packages.ts:819,
  protocol.duplicatePackage) and is the same route PR docs(qa): retarget rollup-summary-filter editor half at duplicate route #11913 verified and
  cited — re-confirmed here rather than taken on faith.
• Re-read access-security.json on origin/main first: the item's step 5 /
  acceptance clause 3 were exactly as the dispatch card described (generic
  "WRITABLE (draft/app-local) object," no fixture blocker) — premise held.
• Confirmed PR docs: retarget the general-rule ADR-0057 D10 citations to ADR-0124 D1 #11780 (359e497f8, merged) only renamed ADR citations
  (ADR-0057 D10 → ADR-0124 D1) in this file and did not touch this item's
  revision or the writable-contrast wording — nothing here was already done.

Scope

Only docs/qa/platform-checklist/areas/access-security.json. The design
question ("should the stock showcase boot with a writable package?") is
not reopened — it was ruled NO on 2026-08-19 and reaffirmed 2026-08-25;
this PR is the mechanical retarget the ruling calls for. No writable package
provisioned, no seed fixtures added, content/docs/** untouched.

Local gates

node scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo objectstack-ai/objectstack (run
against the final commit 2821d5d08) names two matched families for this
diff, both green:

• pnpm check:doc-authoring — "393 files clean — no bare metadata literals."
• pnpm --filter @objectstack/lint run check:doc-formula-expressions —
  self-test 58/58, "22 record-scoped formula example(s) … judged clean,"
  "9 @example(s) judged clean," "14 predicate(s) … judged clean; 6 skipped as
  undeterminable" (documented, pre-existing, unrelated to this diff).

check:platform-checklist is not CI-wired (manual cadence by maintainer
decision — README), so dispatch-gates.mjs does not name it, but the area
README asks for it whenever the checklist itself is touched, so it was run
anyway: check-platform-checklist: OK — 15 areas, 221 items (221 active); coverage: 31 kinds mapped, 0 waived; traps: 19 documented, 19 in use; provisioning: 5 area recipes, 8 item references resolved (1 area-qualified), 5/5 recipes referenced.

Also ran pnpm check:nul-bytes (any edit) — green: "scanned 7539 text
file(s) … no raw ASCII control bytes."

No changeset — QA-checklist-only change, nothing user-visible or published
(same precedent as PR #11913). skip-changeset label applied and confirmed
present on read-back.

Generated by Claude Code