The message menu labelled the delete `if (line.mine) "Unsend" else "Delete
for me"`, and both branches call `deleteMessage` → `Session.deleteMessage` →
`vault.deleteLine`. That is the whole implementation. No envelope leaves the
phone; the recipient's copy stays exactly where it is.
🔴 **Worse than an overclaiming page**, which is why this got a test and not
just an edit. A page that overclaims can be read sceptically. A button that
reports success cannot: the feedback IS the claim, and it arrives at the
moment the person is most relieved to believe it.
"Delete for me" was already the other half of that ternary, and it was always
the accurate half.
⚠️ Two tests, not one, because the first is worthless without the second: a
source scan that walks the wrong directory finds no files and passes every
assertion in it. `the scan actually reaches the chat screen` pins that the
walk reaches the file the bug was on. The walk climbs to the module root
rather than resolving a relative path, for the same reason.
Proved by breaking it, not by watching it pass:
label reverted → FAILED, naming ChatScreens.kt line ~1564
restored → 2 tests, 0 failures
1190 tests pass across the suite.
⚠️ This is ios#57 on the other platform, fixed there in the same pass. A real
retract is a new `kind` on rails that already exist — §6.15's edit machinery
is implemented and tested on both clients. But even then it is a request, not
a guarantee: a client can ignore it and the message may already have been
read. Whatever the button eventually says must not promise more than "we
asked them to remove it."
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
