No Custom-Field Inputs Appear in the Examined Close Boundary

Context

Custom-field support requires a deliberate record-type capability declaration under the adopted standard, rather than inference from flexible storage.

Decision

Preserve the no-custom-field design for these close objects. The inspected code supports absence of use; it does not supply the registration declaration needed to independently verify that part of the standard.

Alternatives Considered

Make customer checklist additions into run custom fields. The adopted design uses deterministic readiness evaluators, and no verified registration establishes custom-field support for close.

Consequences

A proposed customer-specific control needs an explicit readiness design rather than an undeclared field. The current export and purge declarations cover the module’s existing stored record groups.