trek-e's re-review asked to either mechanize the Step 9.5 element
extraction or add an inline note justifying why it stays manual, so a
future maintainer doesn't read it as an oversight.
Verified the premise: the requirement-side edge-probe path (spec-phase
Step 5.5) it mirrors is ALSO a hand-populated heredoc + fail-loud
<replace:> placeholder guard — not a mechanical parse. The UI probe
mirrors that idiom verbatim. Mechanizing would be worse: a UI-SPEC has no
single machine-parseable "elements" column (surfaces are spread across the
design-token tables, Copywriting, and researcher-named prose), so a
regex/table parse would fail-OPEN (miss a prose-named surface, or feed a
design-token row as a bogus element).
Expanded the inline comment to state the parity + the fail-open rationale
explicitly. No logic change; regenerated the workflow size baseline and
the 16 golden-install-parity fixtures for the +847 B comment.
Refs #1867
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017vYn26e3nkDNxcpty1ciPJ
830670f288