We should never assign use_sea, there are only 2 active modes either default(thrift), or use_kernel which use kernel.

Already satisfied. The test at tests/e2e/test_driver.py:350 (test_execute_async__close_without_fetch_frees_handle) now parametrizes only extra_params=[{}] — the default (thrift) mode — with no use_sea assigned. The {"use_sea": True} case shown in the review diff hunk is no longer present in the current tree, so this async-handle-leak test does not exercise SEA. No code change needed here. (Note: CONTRIBUTING.md and .bot/prompts/engineer/system.md still document adding a {"use_sea": True} param case for backend-parametrized e2e tests generally; if the intent is to drop use_sea as a supported mode repo-wide, that's a broader change for a human to reconcile with those docs.)

🔵 Low — The SEA branch of this test may be brittle. After close_command issues a DELETE on the statement, the subsequent get_query_state does a plain GET (_poll_query) and returns whatever status.state the server reports. The test only tolerates a raised error or state in (CommandState.CLOSED, CommandState.CANCELLED). If SEA responds to a GET on a just-deleted statement with any other terminal/transient state (e.g. it still echoes SUCCEEDED briefly, or a state not in that tuple), the else assert fails and the test flakes — even though the handle was correctly freed. Since get_query_state intentionally does not call _check_command_not_in_failed_or_closed_state, there's no guarantee of a CLOSED/CANCELLED signal. Consider confirming empirically what SEA returns post-delete, or broadening the accepted signal (e.g. also accept a 404-derived error) so the test isn't tied to an unverified state assumption.

⛔ NEEDS HUMAN DECISION — the bots can't resolve this thread; a maintainer's input is required.

The comment targets the SEA branch of an E2E test whose correct accepted-state set depends on what a live SEA warehouse actually returns from get_query_state() after close_command issues the statement DELETE. This job has no live-warehouse connection and must not run/add e2e tests, so I cannot verify SEA's real post-delete signal here. The reviewer's two options both hinge on that empirical fact: (a) confirm empirically — impossible in this job; (b) broaden the accepted states — unsafe to do blind, because the pre-fix leak "returns a live/terminal-success state," so broadening (e.g. accepting SUCCEEDED) without knowing SEA's freed-handle behavior would let the test pass in the leak case and destroy the regression it guards. A human needs to run this against a live SEA warehouse to observe the actual post-DELETE state (or 404), then either narrow the assertion to that confirmed signal or, if SEA gives no reliable freed signal, restructure the SEA branch (e.g. skip the re-poll assertion for SEA). Flagging for human judgment rather than guessing at a broadening that could mask the leak.