An outline is useful when it identifies a heading's context, not merely its text. In a text editor outline, duplicate labels such as “Summary” must be distinguished by parent heading, line position, and a chapter-specific arrival marker. Otherwise a jump can land on a plausible but wrong section.
Two identical H2 labels under different H1 parents
The synthetic manuscript placed H1 “Chapter One” and H1 “Chapter Two” on lines 1 and 4, with an H2 named “Same Name” under each on lines 2 and 5. Rune's inspection returned those levels and positions. A unique CH-204 marker at the end of Chapter Two produced exactly one search match, providing an independent arrival check.
If navigation repeatedly lands on the first duplicate, do not rename headings solely to accommodate the tool. Select by parent hierarchy and line position, then verify the chapter marker. This preserves editorially meaningful repeated labels while still making the destination testable.
The product documentation describes live outline tracking in the sidebar. The command-line inspection measured heading extraction and marker search, not the sidebar's selected row. Accept the navigational result when hierarchy, line location, and arrival marker all identify the same section; visual tracking still needs a current Mac interface check.
Use a coordinate, not a label
An outline entry becomes unambiguous when it includes the manuscript, its parent heading, and a source offset. A title alone is weak identification because drafts often repeat labels such as “Preparation” and “Result.” The test deliberately creates that ambiguity instead of using six unique names that would make tracking look easier than it is.
Build a twelve-line collision specimen
The source has six headings in twelve lines. North Route owns one Preparation and one Result; South Route owns another pair with the same labels. Rune inspection returned all six headings with level, line, and offset. This ordered map supplies the parent context that a flat text search omits, and it is small enough for a reviewer to verify manually.
Probe the first manuscript position
The initial cursor probe was placed near the beginning and persisted through the tab command path. Its nearest preceding heading was computed from the inspected offsets. This establishes the baseline: the calculation must not jump forward to a heading that the cursor has not yet reached.
Probe the northern Result body
A second saved offset fell inside the prose following the first Result. A label-only rule would still leave two candidates. Combining the offset with document order selected the northern occurrence under North Route, which is the intended coordinate for that passage.
Probe the southern Result body
The third offset was located below the second Result. The same nearest-preceding rule now resolved to the southern occurrence under South Route. Across all three probes, the cursor and tab-list commands completed with zero failures. The evidence records both the inputs and derived expected headings.
State the interface boundary plainly
Rune Studio documentation says that the outline can track the current manuscript position. The CLI used here persists cursor offsets but does not expose the live selected row in the graphical outline sidebar. No screenshot was produced. Therefore this run verifies the data needed to identify the correct row, not the visual timing or automatic highlight of that row.
Turn the result into an editing habit
When leaving a repeated heading, note file, parent heading, and approximate offset or line. On return, confirm a nearby sentinel phrase before editing. If headings have been inserted or removed, rebuild the map rather than treating offsets as permanent identifiers. This keeps navigation useful without overstating stability.
Accept the workflow when the six-heading map is readable, each of the three stored cursors resolves to its expected preceding heading, and the UI-only claim remains labeled unmeasured. The result supports reliable outline coordinates; it does not claim that structure can be inferred for prose with no headings.
A production manuscript will change after the map is captured. Inserting a paragraph near the beginning shifts later offsets even when headings keep their names. Store the manuscript digest with the heading list and rebuild the list for a new revision. The parent heading and a short nearby sentinel can then confirm identity when raw offsets have moved. This treats position as revision-relative evidence instead of a permanent database key.
The same rule applies after clicking an outline entry in the graphical editor. Arrival is not proved by motion or by seeing a familiar label. Confirm the file, parent heading, level, and nearby prose before editing. If one element disagrees, navigate again rather than correcting text in the accidental destination. This habit matters most when copied chapter templates produce many identical subheadings.
The six-heading specimen is intentionally small, but the method scales because inspection yields an ordered list and each cursor comparison uses the nearest eligible predecessor. It does not need a special case for the word “Result.” It does need a declared policy at exact boundaries, such as whether a cursor on the first heading character belongs to that heading. Record that policy in tests so future implementations agree.
Finally, keep navigation evidence separate from performance. Zero command failures and three correct mappings demonstrate a reproducible coordinate method. They say nothing about animation, scrolling smoothness, or latency in a million-character document. Those interface qualities require a different test with the live sidebar visible. The present acceptance statement stays useful precisely because it stops at the measured boundary.
Reliable text editor outline tracking starts with revision-relative heading coordinates rather than repeated labels.