docs(perf): record rejected Array.find micro-optimization

[seonghobae]

Outcome

The attempted Array.prototype.find() → manual for...of change in the four-entry browser progress fallback was rejected after review because it had no measured product-level benefit and reduced readability. The production code has been restored to protected-develop behavior.

A later automation commit accidentally copied the unrelated chart-priority dictionary optimization from PR #1076 into this branch. That cross-lane mutation was removed with a forward-only repair; this PR again owns only the rejected-optimization learning guardrail.

Current scope

• Production diff: none.
• .jules/bolt.md records the rejected optimization as a guardrail: keep idiomatic Array.prototype.find() for tiny bounded collections unless profiling or benchmark evidence demonstrates a material latency/allocation problem.
• The unrelated services/analysis-engine/src/bandscope_analysis/exports/chart.py change and its chart-priority learning entry are absent from this branch and remain owned by PR ⚡ Bolt: 파이썬 리스트 기반 O(N^2) 룩업을 O(1) 해시맵(Dict)으로 성능 개선 #1076.
• Prefer measurable algorithmic improvements over speculative closure-allocation micro-optimizations.

Review finding

The Devin finding that the rejected-optimization record encouraged the wrong pattern was corrected earlier. The later cross-lane chart-guidance finding was verified against exact head caa98b7815e9f4f06022364fb6aac24600c399a4, repaired by removing only the unrelated chart-priority entry, and its addressed thread was resolved after refetching the successor source.

Verification contract

Exact current head: 0384c8885d1fd0f9bef91ba623a88db1e32f35a1.
Protected base: develop@749511c3ad4000090048718f685c6bee6b3d2c25.

Current-head CI/review/security evidence must be evaluated independently; predecessor, pending, skipped, cancelled, neutral, or failed evidence is not success.

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

Next included review available in 36 minutes.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d8e4ee70-d67e-49bb-b987-e1717362be24

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 749511c and 0384c88.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .jules/bolt.md

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[seonghobae]

Backlog consolidation review: exact current head 0384c8885d1fd0f9bef91ba623a88db1e32f35a1 differs from protected develop only in .jules/bolt.md; there is no production, test, product-doc, workflow, dependency, or buyer-visible delta. The attempted four-entry Array.find() micro-optimization was already rejected and production restored. Keeping a merge lane solely for an agent-memory note adds review/check load without closing a product gap. The branch and discussion remain preserved as historical evidence, including the useful lesson to require measured benefit before micro-optimization. I am closing this PR unmerged as not planned; no check/review evidence is transferred and no branch history is rewritten.

[google-labs-jules]

Backlog consolidation review: exact current head 0384c8885d1fd0f9bef91ba623a88db1e32f35a1 differs from protected develop only in .jules/bolt.md; there is no production, test, product-doc, workflow, dependency, or buyer-visible delta. The attempted four-entry Array.find() micro-optimization was already rejected and production restored. Keeping a merge lane solely for an agent-memory note adds review/check load without closing a product gap. The branch and discussion remain preserved as historical evidence, including the useful lesson to require measured benefit before micro-optimization. I am closing this PR unmerged as not planned; no check/review evidence is transferred and no branch history is rewritten.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.