ApiSurfaceTest: fence the raw register, name every array breach (T2/T3)

[AdaWorldAPI]

What

The enforcement half of the membrane-tier doctrine (paired: AdaWorldAPI/lance-graph# carries the doctrine + bbb-warden in lance-graph so every consumer inherits them). ApiSurfaceTest already forbade FFM / membrane types in any public signature; two additive rules extend it to the T2/T3 membrane — names cross, byte positions never do.

1. Raw-register fence — a byte[] in any public signature (return, param, field) is a raw content register (a [u8;12] rail array / payload bytes) crossing the consumer wall. Caught in check() on the array component type; the existing package-prefix match never sees a primitive component. (ledger L6)
2. Named-breach rule — a public method returning any array must be named materialize* or import*. Folds the GraphHopTest allowlist into the compiled-surface scan, so a bridge or inherited array return can't slip past a source grep. (ledger L7)

Green by construction

The current surface passes both: only Mask.materializeRows() returns an array (named), and no public byte[] exists (RowLayout.sets is private, unscanned). The two predicates' behaviour was proven standalone — a byte[] return and param are flagged, an unnamed int[] return is flagged, materialize*/import* pass — 5/5.

What was NOT run, stated plainly

The full Java suite was not run in-session: the environment has JDK 21; the repo targets JDK 27 + preview FFM + Valhalla, so internal.ffm.Engine won't compile here. CI runs the suite. The change is a purely additive extension mirroring the existing check() / leaksIn() patterns.

What this gate does NOT prove (honest)

Reflection cannot distinguish int classid (a name, clean) from int facet (a slot index, a leak) — same type. WideFieldMask.ofFacets(int... positions) (L1) and the served LgjLaneDesc strides (L2) are the semantic leaks the bbb-warden reviews; this gate catches the mechanical subset only. The doctrine says so; this PR does not overclaim it.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_016WkNBjHc2e3zuyz9i8qJEv

---

Generated by Claude Code

[cursor]

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_bba0b6c5-f61a-4f89-b3f9-0512ec5ce10e)

[coderabbitai]

Important

Draft PR not reviewed

Draft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.

• Trigger a manual review

To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration:

reviews:
  auto_review:
    drafts: true

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}