[34/36] Add OC-170 first-click action task

[cjohnsto-nz]

Stack PR for the Missio 0.8.0 OpenCollection review queue.

Scope

Adds the docs-only OC-170 planning track for first-click reliability across HTTP, GraphQL, WebSocket, and gRPC request actions. The task explicitly requires:

• controls to remain visibly disabled until hydration is ready
• the first pointer/keyboard activation to dispatch exactly once
• no focus-priming click
• no duplicate sends/connects
• protocol-layout, CodeLens, command, keyboard, accessibility, build, package, and install verification

The implementation and completed ledger evidence are owned by PR 71. Duplicating that ledger row on this planning branch would overlap a descendant-owned edit and create avoidable stack conflict risk.

Review outcome

No correction is required on this branch. The reviewer approved the numbering, cross-references, scope, and single-shot dispatch guidance; the later PR 71 implementation follows this task.

Verification

• OC-170 task, prompt, and README references resolve at b5c77cc
• PR 71 contains the claimed/completed OC-170 ledger row and implementation evidence
• GitHub build and Socket security checks pass
• PR 68 -> 69 and PR 69 -> 70 three-way stack checks are clean
• GitHub reports PR 69 as MERGEABLE / CLEAN

[APKiwi]

Verdict: approve. Consistent numbering and cross-references, and the implementation guidance (keep dispatch single-shot, don't show enabled-looking controls before ready, disable or queue during hydration) is sound and matches what the fix PR actually built. Good that the double-send risk is called out up front.

[cjohnsto-nz]

Reviewed against the OC-170 scope and the implementation delivered in PR 71. No change is required on this branch.

The task correctly requires disabled controls during hydration, first pointer/keyboard activation, exactly-once dispatch, and explicit protection against double sends/connects. PR 71 implements the ready-state and first-activation mechanism and owns the completed AGENT_PROGRESS.md row; adding the same ledger content here would overlap the descendant branch and create unnecessary conflict risk.

The task file, goal prompt, and README index are consistent, GitHub checks pass, and the PR 68 -> 69 and PR 69 -> 70 edges are clean. I have left this planning branch unchanged.