feat(orchestration): persist run-next messages server-side across providers - #7240

💭 The prior issue with ProjectionQueuedTurns being split across multiple directories appears to be resolved in this commit—it's now consolidated into a single canonical module with the interface, factory function, and layer all defined together. Let me examine the file to see if there are any other concerns, starting with checking what dependencies it's importing. The imports look solid and the error handling uses existing helper functions appropriately. The consumers like ProjectionPipeline and ProviderCommandReactor are importing it as a namespace, which is the right pattern. I should verify that there aren't any leftover duplicate files for this module in the old locations and confirm the layer is being properly merged into the provider setup. I'm checking whether other repositories follow the same pattern, particularly looking at the Errors.ts helpers. I notice that ProjectionSnapshotQuery already uses a toPersistenceSqlOrDecodeError helper for error classification, but the new module is reimplementing this logic locally with its own mapError function—that's a duplicate helper that might not be necessary. The legacy helpers are acceptable as they are. Looking at the Effect-service setup in the diff, I'm noticing that the ProviderCommandReactorLive layer is providing the SQL-backed repository layer directly within its construction rather than pulling it from the environment, which might be stepping outside the expected service composition pattern. Actually, checking more carefully — it does yield the repository, so the dependency is properly acquired. The provideMerge approach is a valid composition choice, and while it creates separate instances of the stateless repo in different places, that's not problematic. I should verify how other repositories are composed at the top level to see if this pattern is consistent with the rest of the codebase. Verifying the code follows existing conventions — the new DateTime import in ProviderCommandReactor looks good, and I'm checking the other touched files like the client-runtime operations and test setup to make sure there are no new service issues or convention violations. Scanning for any leftover shim files from earlier iterations and confirming the canonical versions are in place. Also checking whether the Struct import removal in ProjectionThreadMessages cascades to other files like ProjectionSnapshotQuery, though any unused imports would surface as a build failure anyway. I'm looking at the ProjectionThreadMessages.ts file and noticing it has a ProjectionThreadMessageRepositoryShape interface that the convention would normally flag as a standalone shape. The PR is adding new methods to this existing interface, so I need to determine whether this is legacy code that should be left alone or a violation that was actually introduced in this change. The key is to focus only on what's new in the PR's scope rather than demanding broader cleanup. Looking at the diff, the new methods were added to the existing shape, which means this is just extending a pre-existing legacy split-file service pattern. Since the convention says not to flag unrelated repository-wide cleanup and the previous run didn't catch this, I won't flag it either. Scanning the rest of the changes, the new recoverAmbiguousQueuedTurnHandoff method uses existing helpers, no new error classes are introduced, and the layer is using Layer.effect appropriately. The module's tag key and the ProjectionQueuedTurn export as both schema and type alias are all fine. Now checking the contracts import in ProjectionQueuedTurns.ts — it's using named imports from "@t3tools/contracts" which aligns with the convention. The mobile file has AsyncResult.isSuccess which is a namespace-like usage from effect/unstable/reactivity, and that looks like an existing repo pattern. The repository pattern looks consistent and clean with no new violations detected. There's a tension between the instruction to return exactly "All clear" and the requirement for JSON schema formatting, so I'll resolve this by structuring the response as a success state with "All clear" as the summary message. I'm deciding whether to resolve prior review threads—they've already been addressed, but without specific node IDs it's safer to leave them as is.