Best possible solution:

Review and land this structural Slides table slice if required checks pass, while keeping #824 open for the remaining table styling and sizing work.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable as a bug reproduction. Source inspection confirms current main only has slides table create, while the linked issue still requests structural row/column and merge/unmerge operations.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Extending the existing gog slides table group with native Slides API requests, provider bounds checks, revision locking, docs, unit tests, and live coverage is the narrow maintainable path for this slice.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against eda03e04a4fb.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a bounded user-facing Slides feature slice tied to an open P2 capability issue with limited blast radius.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🦞 diamond lobster and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Sufficient (live_output): The PR body reports after-fix live Slides validation covering create, insert, merge, unmerge, delete, read-back checks, and Drive cleanup verification.
• proof: sufficient: Contributor real behavior proof is sufficient. The PR body reports after-fix live Slides validation covering create, insert, merge, unmerge, delete, read-back checks, and Drive cleanup verification.

What I checked:

• Repository policy read and applied: AGENTS.md was read in full; its PR-review guidance says to inspect with gh pr view and gh pr diff without switching branches, which this review followed. (AGENTS.md:34, eda03e04a4fb)
• Current main lacks structural table commands: Current main's Slides table command only registers create, so the row, column, merge, and unmerge surface is not already implemented on main. (internal/cmd/slides_table.go:14, eda03e04a4fb)
• PR adds the requested command surface: The PR head registers row, column, merge, and unmerge subcommands under the existing Slides table group. (internal/cmd/slides_table.go:14, 4fe482fdb937)
• Mutation path validates provider state and locks revision: The shared mutation helper fetches the presentation, finds the target table, runs provider-dimension validation, and sets WriteControl.RequiredRevisionId before batchUpdate when available. (internal/cmd/slides_table_structure.go:280, 4fe482fdb937)
• Focused tests cover request shape and provider checks: The new tests cover dry-run request construction, revision/write-control use, provider out-of-bounds rejection, and local validation failures. (internal/cmd/slides_table_structure_test.go:16, 4fe482fdb937)
• Docs describe the new structural slice: The user docs document zero-based row/column operations, merge/unmerge, count limits, provider bounds checks, revision-locked writes, and destructive deletion behavior. (docs/slides-tables.md:30, 4fe482fdb937)

Likely related people:

• steipete: Current-main blame and log history show Peter Steinberger introduced the existing Slides table create surface and recently authored adjacent Slides element/image command work that this PR extends. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: c78e609203f9, 32a6dddf8d86, eda03e04a4fb; files: internal/cmd/slides_table.go, internal/cmd/slides.go, internal/cmd/slides_insert_text.go)
• clawsweeper[bot]: Recent merged Slides command work on current main includes bot-authored scoped text and slide-structure commits sharing the command surface touched here. (role: adjacent automation contributor; confidence: medium; commits: a91ceadc8c31, 21ca030ddbde; files: internal/cmd/slides.go, internal/cmd/slides_insert_text.go)

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.