修通修订轮出稿：投影守卫不再假设「一条 lineage 只提交一次」

审批卡点「修改/退回」后，策划子 Agent 能提交 v2、GDD 也落盘了，但
`project_submit_successors_locked` 拒绝写 session successor，返回
recoveryPending=true。Runtime 把这次工具动作标成 needs-reconciliation，
hydrate 再看到「未审批的 v2 vs session 还指着 v1」，抛
PLAN_SESSION_RECOVERY_REQUIRED。UI 上「重试恢复」走的是同一个投影守卫，
永远清不掉；「结束旧任务」不重写 session，同样清不掉——项目就此砖掉。

根因是 source_session_matches_gdd 里的 latest_submitted_ref.is_none()。
它不是安全判据：相邻的 sessionRevision + sessionFingerprint 已经是全内容
CAS——读取路径 parse_plan_session_bytes → validate_plan_session 会重算指纹
并拒绝不自洽的 session，所以指纹相等即意味着 session 与出稿时的快照逐字段
相等。那一条只是「一条 lineage 只提交一次」的残留假设，而同文件的提交闸
validate_current_session_cas 早在 §M1C-2b 那段注释里宣布该假设作废。删掉
之后，投影守卫的判据集与提交闸逐条相同——本来就该是这个关系。

顺带：已经砖掉的项目重放时命中同一条路径补写 successor，点一次「重试恢复」
即可自愈，不需要迁移。

守门扩在既有的 rejected_session_needs_a_collecting_continuation_not_a_wider_submit_gate
上。那条测试本来就构造出了这个 session 形状（带 v1 的 latestSubmittedRef 和
reject 的 lastDecisionRef），却只断言提交闸放行就收尾，差一步没走到。补上真正
提交 v2 并断言 !recovery_pending；把 is_none() 加回去这条会红，已验证非空转。

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

apps/ai-game-creator-shell/src-tauri/src/agent/runtime_protocol/planning_submit.rs

@@ -1717,11 +1717,20 @@ fn project_submit_successors_locked(
         // successor.  The only safe forward path is an exact source-session
         // snapshot (including the still-active child run) or an already
         // projected session pointing at this immutable ref.
+        // These judgements are deliberately the same set `validate_current_session_cas`
+        // already enforced at the submit gate.  Do not narrow them with a
+        // `latest_submitted_ref.is_none()` style assertion: revision plus the
+        // recomputed `sessionFingerprint` (`validate_plan_session` rejects a session
+        // whose fingerprint does not hash its own content) already pin the session to
+        // the exact snapshot the submitter observed, so any extra field-shape check
+        // only re-encodes the obsolete "one submission per lineage" rule.  A user
+        // revision round legitimately arrives carrying the previous version's
+        // `latestSubmittedRef`; refusing it strands a committed GDD behind a
+        // `recoveryPending` that no replay can clear.
         let source_session_matches_gdd = session_identity_matches_gdd
             && previous_session.session_revision == gdd.source_session_revision
             && previous_session.session_fingerprint == gdd.source_session_fingerprint
             && previous_session.active_run_id.as_deref() == Some(gdd.created_by_run_id.as_str())
-            && previous_session.latest_submitted_ref.is_none()
             && matches!(
                 previous_session.phase.as_str(),
                 "collecting" | "revision_requested"
@@ -4240,6 +4249,23 @@ mod tests {
         next_context.source_session_fingerprint = continuation.session_fingerprint.clone();
         validate_current_session_cas(&continuation, &next_context, &input)
             .expect("reject 之后的 continuation 必须能提交同一 lineage 的下一版本");
+
+        // 提交闸放行还不够：投影守卫必须认同一条 continuation。这条 session 必然带着
+        // v1 的 latestSubmittedRef 和 reject 的 lastDecisionRef，投影守卫若据此判它不是
+        // 合法起点，v2 就会越过提交点却收不了口，留下一个任何重放都清不掉的
+        // recoveryPending。
+        write_plan_session_atomic_locked(&root, &continuation).expect("write continuation session");
+        next_context.action_id = "action-89abcdef0123456789abcdef".to_string();
+        next_context.action_fingerprint = "4".repeat(64);
+        next_context.approval_request_id =
+            Some("gdd-approval-00000000-0000-4000-8000-000000000041".to_string());
+        let resubmit =
+            execute_plan_submit_gdd(&root, &next_context, &input).expect("continuation 提交 v2");
+        assert_eq!(resubmit.gdd_ref.version, 2);
+        assert!(
+            !resubmit.recovery_pending,
+            "提交闸放行的 continuation，投影守卫也必须放行"
+        );
         cleanup_fixture(root);
     }