CLAUDE WATERMARK REMOVER · DESTINATION TEST
Will cloning two review fields make their shared text record independent?
No. Both cloned fields still refer to one cloned record.
What the test establishes
The source contains two paths to one record. After cloning, a write through the left path appears through the right path, while the original stays AB. These three checks distinguish isolation from the source from independence within the snapshot. A reviewer who expects every field to become a separate copy needs an explicit duplication policy. Structured cloning preserves this relationship instead. The test never edits the original cleaner output field; it mutates a downstream record built from that field. This makes the observed change attributable to aliasing rather than to the removal callback or an unexpected second cleaning pass.
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.
{
"clonedRight": "CD",
"source": "AB",
"shared": true,
"isolated": true
}Capability boundary
Two references to one plain object are measured. Maps, cycles and transfer behavior 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.