chore: carry the RPC-02 deadline-race test fix and re-pin the template

The synced suite contained an assertion that pinned one of two equally
configured deadlines, so it passed alone and failed in a full parallel
run. Fixed upstream and carried here with the template pin moved to
`a0fbafb`.

Three consecutive runs of the 27-file set that reproduced the failure now
pass at 485 tests.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

template.lock.json

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
   "schemaVersion": 1,
   "template": "clean-architecture-frontend-template",
   "sourceRepository": "https://git.learn.hyeonworks.com/donghyeon.kang/clean-architecture-frontend-template",
-  "sourceRevision": "8157ad40298da19b43574dbd3b667a64ca3ed822",
-  "sourceTree": "94d48775a3e67b11dcc68a19ef3c3561792b0ec5",
+  "sourceRevision": "a0fbafb77b814498fef1be63967921c707f315ac",
+  "sourceTree": "b955b062f28ec66bf84f6787ba40971f4e7b528f",
   "materialization": "tracked-snapshot"
 }

tests/unit/browser-rpc/browser-rpc-remediation.test.ts

@@ -645,10 +645,17 @@ describe("RPC-01 only a positive receipt confirms physical closure", () => {
     );
 
     expect(results).toHaveLength(1);
-    expect(results[0]).toMatchObject({
-      ok: false,
-      error: { code: "RPC_TOTAL_DEADLINE_EXCEEDED" },
-    });
+    // The subject is that a throwing accessor cannot replace the outcome the
+    // runtime already selected, not which deadline won. `totalDeadlineMs` and
+    // `idleDeadlineMs` are deliberately equal here, so pinning one of the two
+    // timeout codes would make this assertion a coin flip under load.
+    expect(results[0]).toMatchObject({ ok: false });
+    const failure = results[0] as { error: { kind: string; code: string } };
+    expect(failure.error.kind).toBe("REQUEST_TIMEOUT");
+    expect([
+      "RPC_TOTAL_DEADLINE_EXCEEDED",
+      "RPC_STREAM_IDLE_TIMEOUT",
+    ]).toContain(failure.error.code);
     expect(cancels).toHaveLength(1);
   });