Three published references — runes/file-ref.md:51, runes/drawer.md:155 and runes/file-ref.md:75 — carried a file-ref labelled SiteConfig pointing at packages/types/src/theme.ts lines 74–125. SiteConfig is not in that file (it is at packages/types/src/config.ts:42-148), and theme.ts is 104 lines long, so 21 of the 52 requested lines did not exist. The drawer opened onto the back half of ThemeManifest, the whole of LayoutDefinition, and the start of ComponentDefinition.

On the documentation page for the rune whose addressing model is the subject of the spec.

This item is the bug's fix (2). Fix (1) has already landed (refrakt-md/refrakt#639) — the ranges were corrected on their own branch rather than waiting on this milestone, because the file-ref doc page was teaching the broken pattern by example. That correction restored accuracy and left the addressing exposure exactly where it was.

So by the time the codemod runs these are ordinary migrations, pointing at the right files with the right ranges, and they convert like the other nineteen. The bug closes here, on the anchoring rather than on the ranges.

Two corrections to the bug's original account, both recorded on it:

Of the three invocations it names, only file-ref.md:51 renders. The other two sit inside ```markdoc fences, so they were wrong examples rather than wrong drawers. For the codemod this matters: a fenced invocation is not a resolvable target, so it cannot be verified byte-identically and must be rewritten by hand to match whatever the live ones become.
There is a fourth, file-ref.md:40, labelled SiteThemeConfig and therefore missed by a SiteConfig grep. It anchors to theme.ts, not config.ts.

Why a codemod rather than a hand migration (D7)

Converting 23 invocations by hand is tedious and exactly the kind of change where a slip reintroduces the bug being fixed. The codemod reads each current slice, infers an anchor from its first meaningful line, rewrites the invocation, and verifies the new resolution produces a byte-identical slice — refusing to rewrite when it does not.

The diff stays reviewable; the verification is what makes it trustworthy.

Two things the verification does not cover

The comparison runs before reindent (WORK-589), or every nested target fails verification for a difference the codemod itself introduced.
Companion attributes need their own check. An invocation carrying highlight= needs those coordinates preserved or rewritten as highlight-match= (D13), and byte-identical verification covers the slice only, not the highlight. {% snippet path="…/lang-map.ts" lines="10-40" linenumbers=true highlight="18-22" /%} is live on the snippet doc page and has to become something.

Regex-literal lexing lands here if needed

D8 defers /…/ lexing from WORK-597 — perhaps 15 more lines, causing the single silent-wrong case and most of the 62 refusals in the measurement. Pick it up only if the migration surfaces refusals that need it. Do not do it speculatively.

Acceptance Criteria

A --fix codemod converts lines= invocations to anchors, verifying byte-identical output and refusing to rewrite when it differs
The codemod's byte-identical check compares the slice before reindent is applied
An invocation carrying highlight= or linenumbers= is either preserved with its coordinates or rewritten to highlight-match=, with its own verification separate from the slice check
The 23 line-addressed snippets in site/content are migrated, or individually justified as intentionally line-addressed
BUG-020's four references are anchored — symbol="SiteConfig" on the three in config.ts, symbol="SiteThemeConfig" on the one in theme.ts — and BUG-020 is closed
The codemod does not stamp SPEC-134 reviewed markers on anything it migrates
Which languages and formats the migration actually reached is recorded, as the input to D15's deferred config-surface decision

Approach

Run the codemod, read every hunk, and treat a refusal as information rather than an obstacle — a refusal means the anchor engine could not reproduce the slice, which is exactly the case where a human should look at what that snippet was pointing at.

Expect some of the 23 to be legitimately line-addressed: several are demonstrations on the snippet doc page itself, deliberately showing the lines= form. Those should keep it and say so, which is why the criterion reads "migrated, or individually justified".

Blocked by

WORK-588 — section and paired are what make the non-TypeScript half of site/content addressable at all
WORK-589 — the reindent ordering the verification depends on

Notes

Do not auto-stamp review markers (SPEC-134 D8). A marker asserting that a human reviewed 23 regions nobody looked at is a false claim in precisely the shape SPEC-134 exists to prevent. The criterion above is stated negatively on purpose.

This item is also the input to D15: record which languages and formats came up, because that is what decides the shape of the config surface if one ever ships.

References

SPEC-131 — D7 (the codemod), D8 (regex literals, conditionally picked up here), D13 (companion attributes), D15 (this phase is the input), D16 (the ordering)
BUG-020 — the live instance this closes
SPEC-134 — D8, the no-bulk-stamping rule this item must respect
site/content/runes/drawer.md, site/content/runes/file-ref.md — the three affected drawers