## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a
human decision.
> - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels.
> - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions
in the queue.
> - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of
the terminal blocker.
> - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user
interfaces.
> - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions
with the largest impact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related PR: #10774
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They
can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an
intermediate issue.
**Subsystem affected**
This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions,
shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface.
**Current behavior**
The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The
queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations
remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal
actionable blocker.
**Proposed behavior**
Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit
due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede
older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the
terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and
overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate
confirmation work no longer consumes attention.
**Breaking changes**
The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to
`deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated
confirmation interactions can now finish with the
`superseded_by_newer_request` outcome.
## What Changed
- Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and
record the mutation in activity history.
- Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers,
suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact.
- Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new
plus overdue work in the desk badge.
- Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and
queue.
- Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training
controls, and clearer recommendation copy.
- Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all
server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second
DB timeout flaked under full-suite load)
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation)
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers.
- Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed
dependency graph can stop at the last safe node.
- The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the
decisions badge.
- Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older
pending interactions.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model
snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
8e7f1c03eb