fix(review): don't overclaim a submit-gate bypass on a same-account write

packages/cli/src/commands/review/cleanup.test.ts

@@ -547,6 +547,14 @@ describe('runCleanup — bypass-write audit', () => {
     expect(warnings.join('\n')).toContain('review 501 (APPROVED)');
     expect(warnings.join('\n')).toContain('no submit receipt vouches for it');
     expect(warnings.join('\n')).not.toContain('review 500');
+    // The footer leads with the benign explanation — a same-account write is
+    // usually external (you, a bot, or a concurrent workflow under the same
+    // login) — names the account, and qualifies the bypass claim instead of
+    // asserting a gate bypass outright. A concurrent same-account write on an
+    // observe-only run must not read as "you bypassed the submit gate".
+    expect(warnings.join('\n')).toContain('likely cause is benign');
+    expect(warnings.join('\n')).toContain('reviewer');
+    expect(warnings.join('\n')).toMatch(/real bypass of that gate only if/);
   });
 
   it('spares every review in a multi-id receipt (two sanctioned submits in one window)', () => {

packages/cli/src/commands/review/cleanup.ts

@@ -356,9 +356,11 @@ function auditPrWrites(target: string, prNumber: string): void {
       );
     }
     writeStdoutLine(
-      `warning: if the user did this themselves — or another workflow posts under the same ` +
-        `account — ignore this; otherwise a write bypassed the submit gate. ` +
-        `Relay this warning verbatim in the terminal summary.`,
+      `warning: The likely cause is benign — you, another workflow, or a bot ` +
+        `posting under the same account (${me}) produces exactly this shape. ` +
+        `\`/review\` writes to the PR only through \`qwen review submit\`; a write ` +
+        `here is a real bypass of that gate only if its content is this review's own ` +
+        `output. Relay this warning verbatim in the terminal summary so a human can judge.`,
     );
   } catch (err) {
     skipNote(briefErrorLine(err));