Reconsider yes/no replacement-intent clarifications when either item is prohibited

[rlippmann]

Summary

The engine currently creates pending yes/no clarification for these use X instead of Y cases:

1. Y is prohibited:
   • prompt: "Y" is currently prohibited. Did you mean to remove it and use "X" instead?
2. X is prohibited:
   • prompt: "X" is currently prohibited. Did you mean to remove "Y" and use "X" instead?

These paths appear to go beyond a conservative repair of replacement intent. Resolving them requires the engine to choose or authorize additional policy mutations rather than merely correcting a uniquely recoverable directive.

The directive drafter is likely the better layer for reformulating intent in these conflict cases. Core can return a non-pending clarify that explains the state conflict, after which the user or drafter can produce a new explicit directive.

The separate case where Y does not exist should remain out of scope for this issue: proposing use X is a straightforward deterministic repair.

Expected behavior

Decide and document a narrower ownership boundary:

• core-owned pending confirmation for deterministic, semantics-preserving repairs;
• non-pending clarification for conflicts that require a stronger policy rewrite or additional inferred mutations;
• drafter/user supplies the new explicit directive.

Actual behavior

The prohibited-item branches establish pending clarification and accept yes/no, allowing the engine to apply a stronger corrective transition.

Minimal reproduction

• Input(s):
  • establish prohibit Y, then submit use X instead of Y
  • establish prohibit X (and any state required for Y), then submit use X instead of Y
• Engine state before input: one of the replacement-intent items is prohibited
• Decision output observed: clarify with pending yes/no confirmation

Audit the exact state mutations performed after confirmation, including whether either path compiles to multiple policy operations.

Parity context

• Python issue: Reconsider yes/no replacement-intent clarifications when either item is prohibited context-compiler#187
• Preserve Python/TypeScript parity.
• Update parity/conformance fixtures and directive grammar/API documentation as applicable.

Environment

• Package version: current main
• Node version: not applicable to design audit