fix: roll back failed resource imports completely

[Coding-Dev-Tools]

Description

Fix resource imports that report a failed file while committing part of it. For example, an FTS failure on the second file of a three-file import previously returned two imports and one error but retained all three canonical records. A later chunk or optional derived fact could also leave an unreported prefix.

Folder and upload imports now roll back each failed resource's chunks, vectors, FTS and receipts before returning its error. Optional derivation has an independent rollback boundary that preserves the successfully imported source. Failed savepoint rollback/release raises a fatal SavepointError; the enclosing operation aborts, including optional conflict repair. Caller-owned work remains caller-owned, and native index writes participate in rollback.

Depends on #206 (and #203) and targets codex/memory-maintenance-boundaries. No schema migration, public response/signature, ranking or approval changes. This is the integrity prerequisite for moving legacy import preparation outside the writer; that preparation and separate-index post-commit publication remain separate work. Earlier partial imports are not automatically erased or reconciled.

Type

• Bug fix
• Documentation
• New feature
• CI/CD

Verification

• Four bounded internal reviewers examined the import boundaries. Review reproduced savepoint-settlement failures, which are fixed and covered; no descendants or separate tasks were used.
• Fourteen new regression cases fail against unchanged dependency dc4382d1; the preserved original regression run has 10 passes and two optional native skips.
• All 44 new cases pass, including the real sqlite-vec 0.1.9 backend, plus eight existing conflict-repair cases.
• Full Windows/Python 3.12.10 suite: 5,120 passed, 39 skipped, with the isolated sqlite-vec extra available. Skips are retained as validation limits; this is not production restore or capacity evidence.
• ruff check . passes.
• Pyright: zero errors/warnings.
• Commercial manifest, packaged/CSP asset check, sample/codemem retrieval, ablation, reinforcement, adversarial-memory security, grounded recall and coding-arm offline gates pass.
• All 20 GitHub checks pass on 6638196f, including Python 3.9 core, full-stack 3.10-3.14, encryption, coverage, browser, package, integration and Docker gates.
• Review follow-up explicitly allows the fixture's temporary import root, preserving production path restrictions. All 44 cases pass with a deliberately unrelated home directory; focused import/service tests pass (154 passed, one skip). The verified review thread is resolved.
• The Windows full suite and offline gates above ran on 7d295e19; the final follow-up changes only the test fixture.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-08T07:53:08.702322Z	efe0fa6	New commits

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7d295e1971

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: efe0fa6a26

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".