Review silence history when moderating a spam post

User intention

Delete a spam-flagged post from an already silenced author.

The intention is included in the agent’s input prompt alongside environment details and task instructions.

What breaks, and what should happen

Play Both

BeforeThe defect at the parent commit

0:00.00 / 0:00.00Frame 0

Inspect the existing automatic silence on the author card, then compare it with the review timeline after Delete post.

AfterThe same script once the merged fix is applied

0:00.00 / 0:00.00Frame 0

Compare the automatic-silence entry with the author card and the later deletion and approval entries.

How is it judged?

01 · Given

Restore the data and starting state.

A moderator views a pending spam flag on a hidden post by casey_review. Before the moderator acts, the system user has already automatically silenced the author for this same post, with an automatic-silence reason and a recorded post-linked user-history entry. The review row has a silence indicator; opening the user card reveals the active silence and its automatic reason.

02 · When

Perform the interaction.

Inspect the author user card, dismiss it, open the Yes action menu, and choose Delete post. Inspect Timeline & notes for the resulting review.

03 · Judge

Rationale: Current silence and its cause are different facts. A history showing only later moderation cannot explain an earlier automatic penalty, leaving the moderator with a misleading account of how the author became silenced.

Require

In the review context, make the existing post-linked silence's provenance inspectable: the system applied it before the moderator's deletion and approval. Keep that earlier penalty distinguishable from the later actions and retain the accurate current silence indication.

Allowed

A chronological penalty event in Timeline & notes or an equivalent clearly associated history/detail affordance in the review context may convey actor, time and ordering.
Absolute or relative times may be used if the earlier silence remains distinguishable from the later moderation actions; exact timestamp formatting is optional.
Existing indicators and user-card reason may remain. This case does not require changing the penalty, proving a moderator's subjective belief, or covering suspension states absent from this replay.