Add recovery handoff system notices (#5289)

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a
durable final disposition.
> - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or
close the work.
> - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored
recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without
overloading normal comments.
> - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment
presentation metadata, and system notice rendering.
> - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing
recovery state.

## What Changed

- Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation
behavior, and recovery tests.
- Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration
`0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support.
- Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI
components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage.
- Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic
recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile.

## Verification

- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx`

## Risks

- Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might
later add a migration.
- The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering,
so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment
metadata compatibility.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts

@@ -91,6 +91,11 @@ const mockWorkProductService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
 
 const mockEnvironmentService = vi.hoisted(() => ({}));
 
+const mockDb = vi.hoisted(() => ({
+  select: vi.fn(),
+  execute: vi.fn(),
+}));
+
 vi.mock("../services/index.js", () => ({
   companyService: () => ({
     getById: vi.fn(async () => ({ id: "company-1", attachmentMaxBytes: 10 * 1024 * 1024 })),
@@ -130,7 +135,7 @@ function createApp() {
     };
     next();
   });
-  app.use("/api", issueRoutes({} as any, {} as any));
+  app.use("/api", issueRoutes(mockDb as any, {} as any));
   app.use(errorHandler);
   return app;
 }
@@ -186,6 +191,14 @@ describe.sequential("issue goal context routes", () => {
     mockDocumentsService.getIssueDocumentPayload.mockResolvedValue({});
     mockDocumentsService.getIssueDocumentByKey.mockResolvedValue(null);
     mockExecutionWorkspaceService.getById.mockResolvedValue(null);
+    mockDb.select.mockReturnValue({
+      from: vi.fn(() => ({
+        where: vi.fn(() => ({
+          orderBy: vi.fn(async () => []),
+        })),
+      })),
+    });
+    mockDb.execute.mockResolvedValue([]);
     mockProjectService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
       id: legacyProjectLinkedIssue.projectId,
       companyId: "company-1",