CLAUDE WATERMARK REMOVER · DESTINATION TEST
Why can I edit text on a clone of a readonly record?
The cloned plain field is writable even though the original descriptor is readonly.
What the test establishes
The source field is explicitly enumerable but not writable. A structured clone retains its value as ordinary data and does not preserve that readonly descriptor. Editing the clone succeeds while the original remains AB. If a review workflow uses descriptors as an editing guard, it must apply its policy again to the destination object. A successful clone is not a guarantee that object-level restrictions survived. The fixture checks the descriptors directly as well as the visible values, avoiding an inference based only on a failed or successful assignment. This concerns a plain data property after cleanup and does not change the original homepage result field.
Reproduce the observation
Save tested-app.js and reproduce.cjs together, then run node reproduce.cjs. Compare its output with the recorded observation. The harness executes the actual homepage callback in a minimal DOM and records its resulting field values and method calls. Destination operations run in Node.js; the homepage DOM is a controlled substitute. Runtime: v24.22.1. No submitted text or genuine Claude output is used.
{
"source": "AB",
"clone": "CD",
"sourceWritable": false,
"cloneWritable": true
}Capability boundary
One enumerable data property is measured. Accessors and nonenumerable properties are excluded.
This Claude watermark remover edits a small selected character set. These callback observations do not establish authorship, detector scores, statistical-watermark removal or end-to-end browser behavior. For real work, keep the original and compare the exact result at its destination.
Primary material and next step
The tested first-party source snapshot and complete harness are the primary material for this page. For broader scope, read invisible Unicode versus AI watermarks, or return to the cleaner.