diff --git a/docs/api-contract.md b/docs/api-contract.md
index 7c099a4..47b1a5f 100644
--- a/docs/api-contract.md
+++ b/docs/api-contract.md
@@ -390,6 +390,8 @@ Consequences per function:
 
 ---
 
+> **Known divergence, low impact today — `inbox.share` always deposits on the recipient's PROTECTED inbox.** Upstream the choice follows the profile through which the person was reached (`a_or_b = if details.profile.is_public() { "site" } else { "protected" }`, `engine/verifier/src/inbox_processor.rs:787`). This library has no notion of "which profile I know this person by", so it picks one. It flattens a distinction the model makes; it will be wrong the day an application shares with someone met through a public profile. Recorded rather than fixed, because the fix needs a notion nothing here has established — note that the `Identity` enum that would name it is entirely commented out upstream (`engine/repo/src/types.rs:586-595`), so there is no profile model to read yet.
+
 ## 10. Capabilities — possession, not ACL
 
 ### Today
diff --git a/packages/client/src/surface/inbox.ts b/packages/client/src/surface/inbox.ts
index d908f6c..59b5cf8 100644
--- a/packages/client/src/surface/inbox.ts
+++ b/packages/client/src/surface/inbox.ts
@@ -296,7 +296,29 @@ export async function share(doc: NuriLike, toUser: string): Promise<void> {
         `for it. A cap is looked up in what you hold, or it was delivered to you: ${JSON.stringify(target)}`,
     );
   }
-  // Protected, because directed sharing is not a public announcement.
+  // ── KNOWN DIVERGENCE: the protected inbox is hard-coded here ──────────────
+  // Upstream the choice is not fixed. A contact record picks its inbox from the PROFILE
+  // through which the person was reached: `a_or_b = if details.profile.is_public()
+  // { "site" } else { "protected" }` (`engine/verifier/src/inbox_processor.rs:787`,
+  // written as `ng:site_inbox` vs `ng:protected_inbox` at `:823-824`). Reach someone by
+  // their public profile and the deposit goes to their public store's inbox; by their
+  // protected profile, to the protected one.
+  //
+  // This library has no notion of "the profile by which I know this person", so it
+  // always uses the protected one. Minor today — a consumer names a user and gets one
+  // answer — but it flattens a distinction the model makes, and the day an application
+  // shares with someone met through a public profile, this picks the wrong inbox.
+  //
+  // Not fixable in isolation: it needs a notion this library does not have, and about
+  // which nothing has been established here. What IS verified: a wallet holds `sites`,
+  // a `SiteV0` has an `id: PubKey`, a `name`, a `site_type` (Individual | Org) and three
+  // stores (`engine/verifier/src/site.rs:23-40`); the `Identity` enum that would name
+  // the rest is entirely COMMENTED OUT upstream (`engine/repo/src/types.rs:586-595`).
+  // Do not build on an assumed profile model — there is none to read yet.
+  //
+  // (The private store has no inbox at all — `new_store_default` attaches one only
+  // `if !private`, `verifier.rs:2994` — hence `InboxScope`, which makes "the private
+  // inbox" unwritable rather than merely empty.)
   await post(await userInbox(toUser, "protected"), { payload: { kind: LINK_KIND, cap } });
 }