diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Expressions.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Expressions.cs
index d134db950a1c5..cd667f65cc525 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Expressions.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Expressions.cs
@@ -3905,7 +3905,7 @@ private void CheckArgumentRefKind(RefKind argRefKind, BoundExpression argument,
             }
             else
             {
-                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider removing or adjusting the reported argument position
+                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, consider removing or adjusting the reported argument position
                 var argNumber = invokedAsExtensionMethod ? arg : arg + 1;
 
                 // Warn for `ref`/`in` or None/`ref readonly` mismatch.
@@ -8629,7 +8629,7 @@ static bool tryResolveExtensionInScope(
                 // 3. resolve properties
                 Debug.Assert(arity == 0 || lookupResult.Symbols.All(s => s.Kind != SymbolKind.Property));
 
-                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Regarding 'acceptOnlyMethods', consider if it would be better to add a special 'LookupOptions' value to filter out properties during lookup
+                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78827 : MQ, Regarding 'acceptOnlyMethods', consider if it would be better to add a special 'LookupOptions' value to filter out properties during lookup
                 OverloadResolutionResult<PropertySymbol>? propertyResult = arity != 0 || acceptOnlyMethods ? null : resolveProperties(left, lookupResult, binder, ref actualReceiverArguments, ref useSiteInfo);
 
                 // 4. determine member kind
@@ -8686,7 +8686,7 @@ static bool tryResolveExtensionInScope(
 
                 // ambiguous between multiple applicable properties
                 propertyResult.Free();
-                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider using the property overload resolution result in the result to improve reported diagnostics
+                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, consider using the property overload resolution result in the result to improve reported diagnostics
                 result = makeErrorResult(left.Type, memberName, arity, lookupResult, expression, diagnostics);
                 return true;
             }
@@ -8816,7 +8816,7 @@ static MethodGroupResolution resolveMethods(
 
             static MethodGroupResolution makeErrorResult(TypeSymbol receiverType, string memberName, int arity, LookupResult lookupResult, SyntaxNode expression, BindingDiagnosticBag diagnostics)
             {
-                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : we'll want to describe what went wrong in a useful way (see OverloadResolutionResult.ReportDiagnostics)
+                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, we'll want to describe what went wrong in a useful way (see OverloadResolutionResult.ReportDiagnostics)
                 var errorInfo = new CSDiagnosticInfo(ErrorCode.ERR_ExtensionResolutionFailed, receiverType, memberName);
                 diagnostics.Add(errorInfo, expression.Location);
                 var resultSymbol = new ExtendedErrorTypeSymbol(containingSymbol: null, lookupResult.Symbols.ToImmutable(), LookupResultKind.OverloadResolutionFailure, errorInfo, arity);
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Invocation.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Invocation.cs
index ef11a6d9fb00e..41b580dc6a935 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Invocation.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Invocation.cs
@@ -2436,7 +2436,6 @@ internal bool InvocableNameofInScope()
 #nullable enable
         private BoundFunctionPointerInvocation BindFunctionPointerInvocation(SyntaxNode node, BoundExpression boundExpression, AnalyzedArguments analyzedArguments, BindingDiagnosticBag diagnostics)
         {
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : this function will probably need an adjustment to deal with static extensions 
             boundExpression = BindToNaturalType(boundExpression, diagnostics);
             RoslynDebug.Assert(boundExpression.Type is FunctionPointerTypeSymbol);
 
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolutionResult.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolutionResult.cs
index 11b36b140651a..e89676d028bc8 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolutionResult.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolutionResult.cs
@@ -1156,7 +1156,7 @@ private static void ReportBadArgumentError(
             TMember method,
             int arg)
         {
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider adjusting or removing the argument index for displaying in diagnostic
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, consider adjusting or removing the argument index for displaying in diagnostic
             BoundExpression argument = arguments.Argument(arg);
             if (argument.HasAnyErrors)
             {
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolution_ArgsToParameters.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolution_ArgsToParameters.cs
index 5c855f30af32b..2ba7fe42049f9 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolution_ArgsToParameters.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolution_ArgsToParameters.cs
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ public ImmutableArray<int> ToImmutableArray()
         private static ImmutableArray<TypeWithAnnotations> GetParameterTypesIncludingReceiver(Symbol symbol)
         {
             Debug.Assert(symbol.GetIsNewExtensionMember());
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider optimizing
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78827 : MQ, consider optimizing
             return [symbol.ContainingType.ExtensionParameter.TypeWithAnnotations, .. symbol.GetParameterTypes()];
         }
 
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compiler/MethodCompiler.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compiler/MethodCompiler.cs
index c4ebcd04da684..ca2eecb8947fa 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compiler/MethodCompiler.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compiler/MethodCompiler.cs
@@ -1406,7 +1406,7 @@ private void EmitSkeletonMethodInExtension(MethodSymbol methodSymbol)
 
             // Emit methods in extensions as skeletons:
             // => throw null;
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Should we throw NotSupportedException instead?
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Should throw NotSupportedException instead
             builder.EmitOpCode(System.Reflection.Metadata.ILOpCode.Ldnull);
             builder.EmitThrow(isRethrow: false);
             builder.Realize();
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker.DebugVerifier.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker.DebugVerifier.cs
index 9ecb458367894..22612b3c49caf 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker.DebugVerifier.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker.DebugVerifier.cs
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ private void VerifyExpression(BoundExpression expression, bool overrideSkippedEx
             private void VisitForEachEnumeratorInfo(ForEachEnumeratorInfo enumeratorInfo)
             {
                 Visit(enumeratorInfo.DisposeAwaitableInfo);
-                if (enumeratorInfo.GetEnumeratorInfo.Method.IsExtensionMethod) // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130: Test this code path with new extensions
+                if (enumeratorInfo.GetEnumeratorInfo.Method.IsExtensionMethod) // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828: Test this code path with new extensions
                 {
                     foreach (var arg in enumeratorInfo.GetEnumeratorInfo.Arguments)
                     {
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker.cs
index 61f879d6c091f..7be3fd3d3ef48 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker.cs
@@ -4510,7 +4510,7 @@ conversionCompletion is not null ?
                 Debug.Assert(reinferredMethod is object);
                 if (node.ImplicitReceiverOpt != null)
                 {
-                    //Debug.Assert(node.ImplicitReceiverOpt.Kind == BoundKind.ObjectOrCollectionValuePlaceholder); // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : the receiver may be converted now
+                    //Debug.Assert(node.ImplicitReceiverOpt.Kind == BoundKind.ObjectOrCollectionValuePlaceholder); // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : the receiver may be converted now
                     SetAnalyzedNullability(node.ImplicitReceiverOpt, new VisitResult(node.ImplicitReceiverOpt.Type, NullableAnnotation.NotAnnotated, NullableFlowState.NotNull));
                 }
                 SetUnknownResultNullability(node);
@@ -4559,7 +4559,7 @@ static MethodSymbol addMethodAsMemberOfContainingType(BoundCollectionElementInit
                 }
                 else
                 {
-                    // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130: Do we need to do anything special for new extensions here?
+                    // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828: Do we need to do anything special for new extensions here?
                     method = (MethodSymbol)AsMemberOfType(containingType, method);
                 }
 
@@ -7441,7 +7441,7 @@ private void ApplyMemberPostConditions(int receiverSlot, MethodSymbol method)
             Debug.Assert(receiverSlot >= 0);
             if (method.GetIsNewExtensionMember())
             {
-                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : should we extend member post-conditions to work with extension members?
+                // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : should we extend member post-conditions to work with extension members?
                 return;
             }
 
@@ -11124,7 +11124,7 @@ private TypeWithAnnotations GetDeclaredParameterResult(ParameterSymbol parameter
             var receiverType = VisitRvalueWithState(receiverOpt).Type;
             // https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/30598: Mark receiver as not null
             // after indices have been visited, and only if the receiver has not changed.
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130: Test this code path with new extensions
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78829: add support for indexers
             _ = CheckPossibleNullReceiver(receiverOpt);
 
             var indexer = node.Indexer;
@@ -11332,7 +11332,7 @@ private void VisitForEachExpression(
 
             MethodSymbol? reinferredGetEnumeratorMethod = null;
 
-            if (enumeratorInfoOpt?.GetEnumeratorInfo is { Method: { IsExtensionMethod: true, Parameters: var parameters } } enumeratorMethodInfo) // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130: Test this code path with new extensions
+            if (enumeratorInfoOpt?.GetEnumeratorInfo is { Method: { IsExtensionMethod: true, Parameters: var parameters } } enumeratorMethodInfo) // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828: Test this code path with new extensions
             {
                 // this is case 7
                 // We do not need to do this same analysis for non-extension methods because they do not have generic parameters that
@@ -11399,7 +11399,7 @@ private void VisitForEachExpression(
                 useLegacyWarnings: false,
                 AssignmentKind.Assignment);
 
-            bool reportedDiagnostic = enumeratorInfoOpt?.GetEnumeratorInfo.Method is { IsExtensionMethod: true } // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130: Test this code path with new extensions
+            bool reportedDiagnostic = enumeratorInfoOpt?.GetEnumeratorInfo.Method is { IsExtensionMethod: true } // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828: Test this code path with new extensions
                 ? false
                 : CheckPossibleNullReceiver(expr);
 
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker_Patterns.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker_Patterns.cs
index 93a6fe03353e8..7d6f10a9f9482 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker_Patterns.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/FlowAnalysis/NullableWalker_Patterns.cs
@@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ public PossiblyConditionalState Clone()
                                 case BoundDagPropertyEvaluation e:
                                     {
                                         Debug.Assert(inputSlot > 0);
-                                        var property = (PropertySymbol)AsMemberOfType(inputType, e.Property); // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : this needs to handle extension properties
+                                        var property = (PropertySymbol)AsMemberOfType(inputType, e.Property); // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : this needs to handle extension properties
                                         var type = property.TypeWithAnnotations;
                                         var output = new BoundDagTemp(e.Syntax, type.Type, e);
                                         int outputSlot = GetOrCreateSlot(property, inputSlot, forceSlotEvenIfEmpty: true);
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter.PatternLocalRewriter.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter.PatternLocalRewriter.cs
index 99d4efd16e1c3..883b2081ed2ce 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter.PatternLocalRewriter.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter.PatternLocalRewriter.cs
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ protected BoundExpression LowerEvaluation(BoundDagEvaluation evaluation)
                             PropertySymbol property = p.Property;
                             var outputTemp = new BoundDagTemp(p.Syntax, property.Type, p);
                             BoundExpression output = _tempAllocator.GetTemp(outputTemp);
-                            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Consider preserving the BoundConversion from initial binding instead of using markAsChecked here
+                            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78827 : MQ, Consider preserving the BoundConversion from initial binding instead of using markAsChecked here
                             input = _localRewriter.ConvertReceiverForExtensionMemberIfNeeded(property, input, markAsChecked: true);
                             return _factory.AssignmentExpression(output, _localRewriter.MakePropertyAccess(_factory.Syntax, input, property, LookupResultKind.Viable, property.Type, isLeftOfAssignment: false));
                         }
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ void addArg(RefKind refKind, BoundExpression expression)
                                 addArg(RefKind.Out, _tempAllocator.GetTemp(outputTemp));
                             }
 
-                            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Consider preserving the BoundConversion from initial binding instead of using markAsChecked here
+                            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78827 : MQ, Consider preserving the BoundConversion from initial binding instead of using markAsChecked here
                             receiver = _localRewriter.ConvertReceiverForExtensionMemberIfNeeded(method, receiver, markAsChecked: true);
                             return _factory.Call(receiver, method, refKindBuilder.ToImmutableAndFree(), argBuilder.ToImmutableAndFree());
                         }
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_FixedStatement.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_FixedStatement.cs
index ec334729f326c..92102501e78db 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_FixedStatement.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_FixedStatement.cs
@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ private BoundStatement InitializeFixedStatementGetPinnable(
                 callReceiver = initializerExpr;
             }
 
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Consider preserving the BoundConversion from initial binding instead of using markAsChecked here
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78827 : MQ, Consider preserving the BoundConversion from initial binding instead of using markAsChecked here
             // .GetPinnable()
             callReceiver = this.ConvertReceiverForExtensionMemberIfNeeded(getPinnableMethod, callReceiver, markAsChecked: true);
             var getPinnableCall = getPinnableMethod.IsStatic ?
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_ObjectOrCollectionInitializerExpression.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_ObjectOrCollectionInitializerExpression.cs
index ee0fe551e9633..d773ccb44eb24 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_ObjectOrCollectionInitializerExpression.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_ObjectOrCollectionInitializerExpression.cs
@@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ private BoundExpression MakeObjectInitializerMemberAccess(
                          _compilation.Conversions.HasImplicitConversionToOrImplementsVarianceCompatibleInterface(rewrittenReceiver.Type, memberSymbol.ContainingType, ref discardedUseSiteInfo, out _));
             // It is possible there are use site diagnostics from the above, but none that we need report as we aren't generating code for the conversion
 #endif
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Consider preserving the BoundConversion from initial binding instead of using markAsChecked here
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78827 : MQ, Consider preserving the BoundConversion from initial binding instead of using markAsChecked here
             rewrittenReceiver = this.ConvertReceiverForExtensionMemberIfNeeded(memberSymbol, rewrittenReceiver, markAsChecked: true);
 
             switch (memberSymbol.Kind)
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs
index 54258d9e0f5c6..03c05482213f6 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs
@@ -4686,7 +4686,7 @@ private SeparatedSyntaxList<ParameterSyntax> ParseParameterList(
                 allowTrailingSeparator: false,
                 requireOneElement: forExtension, // For extension declarations, we require at least one receiver parameter
                 allowSemicolonAsSeparator: false);
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider suppressing parsing diagnostics on extension parameters beyond the first one
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, consider suppressing parsing diagnostics on extension parameters beyond the first one
 
             _termState = saveTerm;
             close = this.EatToken(closeKind);
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/MemberSymbolExtensions.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/MemberSymbolExtensions.cs
index da652b2e03b80..1aa4b38d583e3 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/MemberSymbolExtensions.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/MemberSymbolExtensions.cs
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ internal static ImmutableArray<TypeParameterSymbol> GetTypeParametersIncludingEx
 
         internal static ImmutableArray<ParameterSymbol> GetParametersIncludingExtensionParameter(this Symbol symbol, bool skipExtensionIfStatic)
         {
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider optimizing
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78827 : MQ, consider optimizing
             if (!skipExtensionIfStatic || !symbol.IsStatic)
             {
                 if (symbol.GetIsNewExtensionMember() && symbol.ContainingType.ExtensionParameter is { } extensionParameter)
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs
index 2e8c0b00c8ec1..567bfe7aeb75f 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs
@@ -3813,7 +3813,7 @@ private void AddSynthesizedMembers(MembersAndInitializersBuilder builder, Declar
                     AddSynthesizedTypeMembersIfNecessary(builder, declaredMembersAndInitializers, diagnostics);
                     AddSynthesizedConstructorsIfNecessary(builder, declaredMembersAndInitializers, diagnostics);
 
-                    if (TypeKind == TypeKind.Class) // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Consider tightening this check to only top-level non-generic static classes, however optimizing for error scenarios is usually not a goal.
+                    if (TypeKind == TypeKind.Class) // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78827 : MQ, Consider tightening this check to only top-level non-generic static classes, however optimizing for error scenarios is usually not a goal.
                     {
                         AddSynthesizedExtensionImplementationsIfNecessary(builder, declaredMembersAndInitializers);
                     }
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourcePropertySymbolBase.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourcePropertySymbolBase.cs
index e732124b8f4a3..37b6846086d1d 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourcePropertySymbolBase.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourcePropertySymbolBase.cs
@@ -1725,7 +1725,7 @@ private void ValidateIndexerNameAttribute(CSharpAttributeData attribute, Attribu
                 }
                 else if (this.GetIsNewExtensionMember() && SourceName != indexerName)
                 {
-                    // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Report more descriptive error
+                    // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78829 : extension indexers, Report more descriptive error
                     // error CS8078: An expression is too long or complex to compile
                     diagnostics.Add(ErrorCode.ERR_InsufficientStack, node.ArgumentList.Arguments[0].Location);
                 }
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs
index fe6014cd07d87..fe5a55f555ca3 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs
@@ -2965,7 +2965,7 @@ public static class Extensions
         var model = comp.GetSemanticModel(tree);
         var type = tree.GetRoot().DescendantNodes().OfType<ExtensionBlockDeclarationSyntax>().Single();
         var symbol = model.GetDeclaredSymbol(type);
-        Assert.True(symbol.ExtensionParameter.HasExplicitDefaultValue); // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider not recognizing the default value entirely
+        Assert.True(symbol.ExtensionParameter.HasExplicitDefaultValue);
     }
 
     [Fact]
@@ -12825,7 +12825,7 @@ static class E
 """;
         try
         {
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : assertion in NullableWalker
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : assertion in NullableWalker
             var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
             CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: "42").VerifyDiagnostics();
         }
@@ -16832,7 +16832,7 @@ static class E2
     }
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : the diagnostic should describe what went wrong
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, the diagnostic should describe what went wrong
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (1,38): error CS9286: 'object' does not contain a definition for 'f' and no accessible extension member 'f' for receiver of type 'object' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)
@@ -19936,7 +19936,7 @@ public static void M() { }
 interface I2 : I<int>, I<string> { }
 """;
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net70);
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider improving the symbols in this error message
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, consider improving the symbols in this error message
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (1,4): error CS0121: The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: 'I<T>.M()' and 'I<T>.M()'
             // I2.M();
@@ -20585,7 +20585,6 @@ static class E
 }
 """;
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : revisit pattern-based deconstruction
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (1,6): error CS8130: Cannot infer the type of implicitly-typed deconstruction variable 'x'.
             // var (x, y) = new C();
@@ -20606,6 +20605,26 @@ static class E
         var deconstruction = tree.GetRoot().DescendantNodes().OfType<AssignmentExpressionSyntax>().First();
 
         Assert.Null(model.GetDeconstructionInfo(deconstruction).Method);
+
+        src = """
+var (x, y) = new C();
+
+class C
+{
+    public dynamic Deconstruct => throw null;
+}
+""";
+        comp = CreateCompilation(src);
+        comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
+            // (1,6): error CS8130: Cannot infer the type of implicitly-typed deconstruction variable 'x'.
+            // var (x, y) = new C();
+            Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_TypeInferenceFailedForImplicitlyTypedDeconstructionVariable, "x").WithArguments("x").WithLocation(1, 6),
+            // (1,9): error CS8130: Cannot infer the type of implicitly-typed deconstruction variable 'y'.
+            // var (x, y) = new C();
+            Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_TypeInferenceFailedForImplicitlyTypedDeconstructionVariable, "y").WithArguments("y").WithLocation(1, 9),
+            // (1,14): error CS8129: No suitable 'Deconstruct' instance or extension method was found for type 'C', with 2 out parameters and a void return type.
+            // var (x, y) = new C();
+            Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_MissingDeconstruct, "new C()").WithArguments("C", "2").WithLocation(1, 14));
     }
 
     [Fact]
@@ -21848,7 +21867,7 @@ static class E
     }
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : revisit when implementing extension indexers
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78829 : revisit when implementing extension indexers
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net70);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (2,5): error CS0021: Cannot apply indexing with [] to an expression of type 'C'
@@ -21990,7 +22009,7 @@ static class E
 }
 """;
 
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : revisit when implementing extension indexers
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78829 : revisit when implementing extension indexers
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net70);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (2,5): error CS0021: Cannot apply indexing with [] to an expression of type 'C'
@@ -22106,7 +22125,7 @@ static class E
 }
 """;
 
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : revisit when implementing extension indexers
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78829 : revisit when implementing extension indexers
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net70);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (1,16): error CS0021: Cannot apply indexing with [] to an expression of type 'C'
@@ -23902,7 +23921,7 @@ static class E
         Assert.Equal("System.String E.<>E__0.Property { get; }", model.GetSymbolInfo(memberAccess).Symbol.ToTestDisplayString());
     }
 
-    [Fact(Skip = "Assertion in NullableWalker.AsMemberOfType")] // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : Nullability analysis of properties
+    [Fact(Skip = "Assertion in NullableWalker.AsMemberOfType")] // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : Nullability analysis of properties
     public void Nameof_Instance_Property_Generic_01()
     {
         var src = """
@@ -24937,7 +24956,7 @@ T local<T>(T p1)
 ";
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
 
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : We might need to add a new warning if we don't want to refer to extension as a type in diagnostics
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, we might need to add a new warning if we don't want to refer to extension as a type in diagnostics
 
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (11,21): warning CS0693: Type parameter 'T' has the same name as the type parameter from outer type 'Extensions.extension<T>(T[])'
@@ -26800,7 +26819,7 @@ public static void M13(object receiver2) {}
             //         public void M1() {}
             Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_MemberAlreadyExists, "M1").WithArguments("M1", "Extensions").WithLocation(5, 21),
 
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : The error might be somewhat confusing in this scenario because there are no parameters and we complain about ref-ness of the receiver.
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, the error might be somewhat confusing in this scenario because there are no parameters and we complain about ref-ness of the receiver.
 
             // (19,21): error CS0663: 'Extensions' cannot define an overloaded method that differs only on parameter modifiers 'in' and 'ref'
             //         public void M3() {}
@@ -26928,7 +26947,7 @@ public void M13() {}
             //         public void M1() {}
             Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_MemberAlreadyExists, "M1").WithArguments("M1", "Extensions").WithLocation(7, 21),
 
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : The error might be somewhat confusing in this scenario because there are no parameters and we complain about ref-ness of the receiver.
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, the error might be somewhat confusing in this scenario because there are no parameters and we complain about ref-ness of the receiver.
 
             // (21,21): error CS0663: 'Extensions' cannot define an overloaded method that differs only on parameter modifiers 'in' and 'ref'
             //         public void M3() {}
@@ -27862,7 +27881,7 @@ int this[int x] { set{}}
 ";
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
 
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : The "within a type" part of the message might be somewhat misleading
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality, the "within a type" part of the message might be somewhat misleading
         comp.VerifyDiagnostics(
             // (8,13): error CS9282: Extension declarations can include only methods or properties
             //         int this[T x] => default;
@@ -34283,7 +34302,7 @@ public static class Extensions
         public C.Enumerator GetEnumerator(int x = 1) => new C.Enumerator(x);
     }
 }";
-        var verifier = CompileAndVerify(source, expectedOutput: "23", parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreview.WithFeature("run-nullable-analysis", "never")); // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130: Nullable analysis asserts
+        var verifier = CompileAndVerify(source, expectedOutput: "23", parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreview.WithFeature("run-nullable-analysis", "never")); // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828: Nullable analysis asserts
 
         VerifyFlowGraphAndDiagnosticsForTest<BlockSyntax>((CSharpCompilation)verifier.Compilation,
 @"
@@ -37134,7 +37153,7 @@ public void M() { }
     }
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider reporting a better containing symbol
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78830 : diagnostic quality consider reporting a better containing symbol
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (4,1): warning CS8604: Possible null reference argument for parameter 'o' in 'extension(object)'.
@@ -39811,7 +39830,7 @@ public class MyCollection : IEnumerable<object>
     IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() => throw null!;
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : missing nullability diagnostic
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : missing nullability diagnostic
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics();
 
@@ -39892,7 +39911,7 @@ public int Property { set { } }
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics();
 
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : incorrect nullability
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : incorrect nullability
         var tree = comp.SyntaxTrees.Single();
         var model = comp.GetSemanticModel(tree);
         var assignment = GetSyntax<AssignmentExpressionSyntax>(tree, "Property = 42");
@@ -39923,7 +39942,7 @@ public T Property { set { } }
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics();
 
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : incorrect nullability analysis for object initializer scenario with extension property
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : incorrect nullability analysis for object initializer scenario with extension property
         var tree = comp.SyntaxTrees.Single();
         var model = comp.GetSemanticModel(tree);
         var assignment = GetSyntax<AssignmentExpressionSyntax>(tree, "Property = oNull");
@@ -40018,7 +40037,7 @@ public int Property { set { } }
 }
 """;
 
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : incorrect nullability analysis for with-expression with extension property (unexpected warning)
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : incorrect nullability analysis for with-expression with extension property (unexpected warning)
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (4,5): warning CS8602: Dereference of a possibly null reference.
@@ -40048,7 +40067,7 @@ public int Property { set { } }
     }
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : unexpected nullability warning
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : unexpected nullability warning
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (4,5): warning CS8602: Dereference of a possibly null reference.
@@ -40933,8 +40952,6 @@ static class E
     }
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider warning (WRN_MissingParamTag) about missing documentation for extension parameter
-        //   since one of the instance members has a <param> tag
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreviewWithDocumentationComments);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (8,26): warning CS1572: XML comment has a param tag for 'o', but there is no parameter by that name
@@ -40961,8 +40978,6 @@ static class E
     }
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider warning (WRN_MissingParamTag) about missing documentation for member parameter
-        //   since the extension parameter is documented
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreviewWithDocumentationComments);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics();
     }
@@ -41089,8 +41104,6 @@ static class E
     }
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider warning (WRN_MissingTypeParamTag) about missing documentation for extension type parameter
-        //   since one of the members has a <typeparam> tag
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreviewWithDocumentationComments);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (8,30): warning CS1711: XML comment has a typeparam tag for 'T', but there is no type parameter by that name
@@ -41117,8 +41130,6 @@ static class E
     }
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : consider warning (WRN_MissingTypeParamTag) about missing documentation for member type parameter
-        //   since the extension type parameter is documented
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreviewWithDocumentationComments);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics();
     }
diff --git a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests2.cs b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests2.cs
index 18e747b366a86..36fcd66c2d44b 100644
--- a/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests2.cs
+++ b/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests2.cs
@@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ public static class E
         try
         {
             var comp = CreateCompilation([src, OverloadResolutionPriorityAttributeDefinition]);
-            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : assertion in NullableWalker
+            // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : assertion in NullableWalker
             CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: "42").VerifyDiagnostics();
         }
         catch (InvalidOperationException)
@@ -2248,7 +2248,7 @@ class C
     public object? P3 => throw null!;
 }
 """;
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : incorrect nullability analysis for property pattern with extension property (unexpected warning)
+        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78828 : incorrect nullability analysis for property pattern with extension property (unexpected warning)
         var comp = CreateCompilation(src, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net90);
         comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(
             // (4,5): warning CS8602: Dereference of a possibly null reference.