InnerSource

Closest to 'silent in production until users hit it' (d9). The detection_hints confirm automated=no and the code_pattern describes symptoms (teams blocked, knowledge silos, copy-paste sharing) that only become visible through organizational friction and pain — not through any tooling. GitHub/GitLab can surface repo visibility settings but cannot detect absence of InnerSource culture or practices.

Closest to 'cross-cutting refactor across the codebase' (e7). The quick_fix describes applying open-source contribution practices to internal repositories, but this is a cultural and organizational shift — requiring CONTRIBUTING.md files across many repos, establishing Trusted Committer roles, changing repo visibility defaults, and creating recognition systems. This is a cross-cutting change across teams, processes, and tooling rather than a fix in one component.

Closest to 'strong gravitational pull' (e7). InnerSource applies across web and cli contexts and its tags (culture, collaboration) indicate it shapes how every team operates and shares code. Once adopted (or failed to adopt), every team's workflow for sharing code, accepting contributions, and discovering libraries is affected. The common_mistakes show that omitting key elements (CONTRIBUTING.md, Trusted Committers, open repos) undermines the entire approach, meaning every repo and team interaction is shaped by this choice.

Closest to 'minor surprise (one edge case)' (t3). The misconception is that InnerSource means all code is open to everyone, when in fact security-sensitive code can still be restricted. This is a meaningful but bounded misunderstanding — most developers will partially grasp InnerSource correctly, but assume it eliminates all access controls. It contradicts a reasonable extrapolation but is not catastrophic.