0 blocking, 0 non-blocking, 0 nits.
Approve. Every hunk is behavior-preserving and I verified the equivalences directly; the change only removes per-traversal allocations (extractor tuples, an Option.map closure, and per-call PartialFunction chain construction). No user-facing behavior changes. The added ordering test is a sensible guard for the rule-composition the refactor touches.

Verification

Confirmed BinaryOperator.unapply returns Some((e.left, e.right)) (Expression.scala:869), so case b: BinaryOperator + b.left/b.right matches exactly what the tuple extractor did in both AnsiStringPromotion and ImplicitTypeCoercion. For ImplicitTypeCoercion, traced that case _ => b reproduces both old fall-throughs (None, and Some(ct) where !inputType.acceptsType(ct)) and the Some+accepts branch keeps the same Cast-if-needed logic. For DecimalPrecision: applyOrElse(expr, identity) equals the old lift(expr).getOrElse(expr); both cached chains reproduce the exact orElse order decimalAndDecimal -> integralAndDecimalLiteral -> nondecimalAndDecimal(true/false); and critically, nondecimalAndDecimal uses its literalPickMinimumPrecision parameter only inside case guards (lines 173, 178) and reads no conf at construction, so caching the chains as object vals is safe and the live flag is still read per call via if (conf.literalPickMinimumPrecision) (line 130) - the conf.getConf at line 214 is inside the unchanged widerDecimalType method, not a val initializer. Validated the new test's API: TypeCoercionRule.transform is the overridable PF and AnsiCombinedTypeCoercionRule(rules) (AnsiTypeCoercion.scala:261) chains them, so the assertion genuinely exercises in-order invocation. Changed lines are within 100 chars and ASCII (the flagged long lines are the pre-existing scalastyle:off conversion table and import block). All three scanners (contract_claim_verifier, local_efficiency over 28 lines, text_quality) returned no findings and dropped nothing.