chore(sheets): Marketplace short description submitted — source cell -> source reference - #35
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The last surface still carrying the old claim. Submitted to Google 2026-09-14:
Sourced carbon emission factors in a cell, with the publisher's exact source
reference, data version and a citation. No signup needed.
134 of the 200 characters allowed. One word: the old phrasing was the universal
form of a claim that describes 5.8% of the corpus (2026-09-13 sweep), where
"reference" is true of 100% -- zero rows lack one.
SHIPPED ALONE, AGAINST THIS FILE'S OWN ADVICE. The short description is one of
four fields that forces a re-review (Language / Application name / Short /
Detailed), and this section said to batch it rather than put a freshly-approved
listing back in Google's queue for five characters. The owner chose to ship it
alone. Recorded as a decision, not an accident, along with its cost -- a review
cycle on an otherwise-idle listing. The rule still stands for the next one.
Two things the next session needs. While in review the public page keeps serving
the OLD text; that is not a failed save -- verify via the listing's
<meta name="description">, which flips only when the review clears. And only one
of the four fields moved: Application name, Language and the Detailed
description were checked untouched immediately after submission.
The standing carve-out is restated: the DETAILED description's "the exact cell
in their workbook" is correct and must not be swept -- it describes what
GC_CITE("grid.gbr.electricity.location_based") returns, and that row is DEFRA,
where a cell genuinely is the reference.
New warning added: do not touch the script version while a listing review is
open. App Configuration is pinned at v1 while the deployment runs v5 -- a
separate, deliberate item, and changing it mid-submission resets the review.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LeaxFttn3GPPVq1yj3Jjuk
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The last surface still carrying the old claim. Submitted to Google for review on 2026-09-14:
134 of the 200 characters allowed. One word changed — the old phrasing was the universal form of a claim that describes 5.8% of the corpus (2026-09-13 sweep), where "reference" is true of 100%: zero rows lack one.
Shipped alone, against this file's own advice
The short description is one of four fields that forces a re-review (Language / Application name / Short / Detailed), and this section said to batch it rather than put a freshly-approved listing back in Google's queue for five characters. The owner chose to ship it alone.
Recorded as a decision, not an accident — along with its cost, a review cycle on an otherwise-idle listing. The rule still stands for the next one.
Two things the next session needs
While in review the public page keeps serving the OLD text. That is not a failed save. Verify by fetching the listing and reading
<meta name="description">; it flips only when the review clears.Only one of the four fields moved. Checked immediately after submission: Application name, Language and the Detailed description were all untouched.
And the standing carve-out is restated: the detailed description's "the exact cell in their workbook" is correct and must not be swept — it describes what
=GC_CITE("grid.gbr.electricity.location_based")returns, and that row is DEFRA, where a cell genuinely is the reference.Plus a new warning: do not touch the script version while a listing review is open. App Configuration is still pinned at v1 while the deployment runs v5 — a separate, deliberate item. Changing it mid-submission resets the review.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01LeaxFttn3GPPVq1yj3Jjuk