Double-checking: Can we treat the opening description as sufficient user testing to start the implementation?

Is it good first task? :)

Can we treat the opening description as sufficient user testing to start the implementation?

I think the initial observations confirm the problem exists. The only question is whether the proposed solution would work.
I think it is a reasonable assumption and I don't see much risk in trying it. If there is any concern we can do it closer to when we plan our next round of usability testing to check if any unexpected issues appear, but I don't think that focusing a specific testing session or prototyping this change represents the UX area where to make the biggest research effort in terms of risk/benefit.

Is it Easy? :)

I think it is.

I am note sure whether a edit cursor will be inviting to click and use link tool. If Pau is doing a usability testing in coming days, I think it is better to test it.

There is another use case of selecting text and clicking a link in source column to adapt. If we show a non-pointer cursor, won't it be an issue?

There is another use case of selecting text and clicking a link in source column to adapt. If we show a non-pointer cursor, won't it be an issue?

In that case it also makes sense to keep the hand cursor. I'll add the details at the description on top.

Using a user-specific CSS we can test the simple version of this easily (using text cursor for links) but for a more complete behaviour we may need to enable it as an experimental feature. I'm ok in testing the former in an upcoming round of tests. This does not seem to be in the "critical bugs" category, so there is no need to rush on it in any case.

Solved in CX2 by 97229398b7519fb65c3bcd0770c7be873574d715