docs(drift): draft from internal source

[pedromcunha]

Drafted from an internal source repo, requested by @matirelay.

This PR was auto-generated by the reusable-docs-draft-pr workflow from a Claude-drafted update in the source repo. It is opened as a draft — please review, edit as needed, and mark ready for review before merging.

Review checklist

• Content matches the behavior shipped in the source PR
• No internal-only details (service names, file paths, unreleased names, security internals) leaked into the draft
• Conforms to CLAUDE.md style rules
• Cross-references and internal links resolve
• Any Needs human input items from the source comment are addressed

---

Generated by reusable-docs-draft-pr.yml in relayprotocol/agents-config.

[mintlify]

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
unevenlabs	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Jul 2, 2026, 7:40 PM

💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you.

[github-actions]

Claude finished @pedromcunha's task in 1m 39s —— View job

---

Code Review — PR #354

• Read the changed file (references/api/changelog.mdx)
• Compare against origin/main
• Check conformance to CLAUDE.md style rules (§4.5 changelog format)
• Verify cross-references / internal links resolve
• Post review feedback

---

Verdict: Looks good. This adds a single 2026-07-02 entry to the API changelog and conforms well to the §4.5 changelog format and §5 terminology. No blocking issues.

What's correct

• §4.5 format — ## <YYYY-MM-DD> — <Short summary> heading with em-dash, bolded **Breaking** / **Added** change-type leads on their own lines. ✅
• Newest-first ordering — placed above the 2026-06-23 entry. ✅
• Terminology (§5) — onchain (one word), lowercase solver in prose, backticked field/type names. ✅
• Breaking-change playbook (§4.2) — logged in the changelog, no inline <Warning> on a reference page. I checked for inbound references to the renamed flag: includeProtocolSignature / includeProtocolData / orderSignature are not documented on any other page, so there are no stale inbound links to update (the protocol.v2 hits in references/protocol/*addresses.mdx are the unrelated /chains response shape). ✅
• Internal consistency — the **Breaking** rename (includeProtocolSignature → includeProtocolData) matches the flag named in the **Added** block. No internal-only details (service names, file paths) leaked.

Minor observations (non-blocking)

• Paragraph length (§2.10, 2–3 sentences). The **Breaking** lead runs to four sentences. This is consistent with the existing dense bolded-lead entries in this file, so it fits the established changelog convention — flagging only for awareness, not as a required change.
• Optional cross-link. Several sibling entries close with a See [...] link (e.g. the 2026-06-23 entry links to Handling Quote Errors). If there's a quote reference or concept page that documents the protocol.v2 response block or the ecrecover verification flow, a closing link would help readers, but it's not required by §4.5.

Couldn't verify

• Content vs. source PR. Per the draft checklist, I can't confirm the doc matches the behavior shipped in the internal source PR (renamed flag, hubType always "onchain", latency note). A human reviewer with source access should confirm those specifics before marking ready.