Establish fluid-core scaffold, intent, and phased workplans
Adds the repository structure, INTENT.md declaring the wire-contract boundary, and seven workplans covering Blueprint Phases A-C plus the fluid-telegram handover. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014KmVxhJ35tCo7rE7UnLwWu Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1116572@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 8ba9bb93-a72a-4883-b189-2499cce5c400
This commit is contained in:
parent
af4bf798c4
commit
c2cfe86d88
15 changed files with 5712 additions and 0 deletions
505
spec/InterfaceEvolutionIntent.md
Executable file
505
spec/InterfaceEvolutionIntent.md
Executable file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,505 @@
|
|||
# Interface Evolution Intent
|
||||
|
||||
**Document:** `InterfaceEvolutionIntent.md`
|
||||
**Version:** 0.1.0
|
||||
**Status:** Template / Normative Companion to FLUID API Standards
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
This document defines the evolutionary intent and governance boundary of a FLUID interface.
|
||||
|
||||
It is subordinate to the parent repository or service `INTENT.md` and MUST NOT redefine the overall mission of that service.
|
||||
|
||||
Its purpose is to answer:
|
||||
|
||||
> **How may this interface evolve while remaining faithful to the service it represents?**
|
||||
|
||||
The FLUID Daimon MUST treat this document as a constitutional constraint.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Parent Intent
|
||||
|
||||
**Parent service/repository:**
|
||||
`<name>`
|
||||
|
||||
**Parent intent document:**
|
||||
`INTENT.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Relevant parent mission excerpt or reference:**
|
||||
`<reference>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Interface Identity
|
||||
|
||||
**Interface name:**
|
||||
`<name>`
|
||||
|
||||
**Interface identifier:**
|
||||
`<stable-id>`
|
||||
|
||||
**Current operational authority mode:**
|
||||
`FLUID-0 | FLUID-1 | FLUID-2 | FLUID-3 | FLUID-4 | FLUID-5 | FLUID-6`
|
||||
|
||||
**Protocols / interface styles:**
|
||||
|
||||
- `<REST>`
|
||||
- `<GraphQL>`
|
||||
- `<RPC>`
|
||||
- `<events>`
|
||||
- `<other>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Mission
|
||||
|
||||
Describe the outcome the interface exists to enable.
|
||||
|
||||
The mission SHOULD focus on consumer outcomes rather than protocol details.
|
||||
|
||||
### Mission statement
|
||||
|
||||
> `<what useful capability does this interface make conveniently and reliably available?>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Success looks like
|
||||
|
||||
- `<consumer outcome 1>`
|
||||
- `<consumer outcome 2>`
|
||||
- `<consumer outcome 3>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Intended Consumers
|
||||
|
||||
Define the consumers the interface is designed to serve.
|
||||
|
||||
### Primary consumer cohorts
|
||||
|
||||
| Cohort | Description | Importance | Notes |
|
||||
|---|---|---:|---|
|
||||
| `<cohort>` | `<description>` | `<high/medium/low>` | `<notes>` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Secondary cohorts
|
||||
|
||||
| Cohort | Description | Importance | Notes |
|
||||
|---|---|---:|---|
|
||||
| `<cohort>` | `<description>` | `<high/medium/low>` | `<notes>` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Explicitly unsupported cohorts
|
||||
|
||||
- `<unsupported cohort>`
|
||||
- `<unsupported cohort>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Capability Domain
|
||||
|
||||
Define which capabilities properly belong inside this interface.
|
||||
|
||||
### In scope
|
||||
|
||||
- `<capability family>`
|
||||
- `<capability family>`
|
||||
- `<capability family>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Conditionally in scope
|
||||
|
||||
Capabilities that MAY be introduced if evidence justifies them:
|
||||
|
||||
- `<conditional capability>`
|
||||
- `<conditional capability>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Out of scope
|
||||
|
||||
- `<capability>`
|
||||
- `<capability>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Responsibility Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
The FLUID interface owns interface and adapter behavior only.
|
||||
|
||||
### Responsibilities owned by this interface
|
||||
|
||||
- `<representation>`
|
||||
- `<composition>`
|
||||
- `<validation>`
|
||||
- `<routing>`
|
||||
- `<other>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Responsibilities owned by backend systems
|
||||
|
||||
| Backend | Responsibility | Boundary |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `<service>` | `<responsibility>` | `<what FLUID may request but not assume>` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Explicit non-authority
|
||||
|
||||
The Daimon MUST NOT autonomously:
|
||||
|
||||
- `<modify backend domain logic>`
|
||||
- `<change security policy>`
|
||||
- `<change tenant boundaries>`
|
||||
- `<other>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Consumer Expectation Model
|
||||
|
||||
Describe the expectations the interface SHOULD cultivate.
|
||||
|
||||
### Concepts consumers should naturally understand
|
||||
|
||||
- `<concept>`
|
||||
- `<concept>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Interaction patterns considered natural
|
||||
|
||||
- `<pattern>`
|
||||
- `<pattern>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Expectations that should be discouraged
|
||||
|
||||
- `<misconception>`
|
||||
- `<misconception>`
|
||||
|
||||
This section provides context when interpreting interface pressure.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Optimization Preferences
|
||||
|
||||
The Daimon MUST optimize within declared priorities.
|
||||
|
||||
### Active optimization regime
|
||||
|
||||
`<EXPLORATION | ADOPTION | UTILITY | PERFORMANCE | RELIABILITY | SECURITY | COST | CONSOLIDATION | MIGRATION | CUSTOM>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Fitness priorities
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Priority | Target / Constraint | Notes |
|
||||
|---|---:|---|---|
|
||||
| Client utility | High | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Correctness | High | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Reliability | High | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Availability | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Performance | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Discoverability | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Simplicity | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Compatibility | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Security | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Maintainability | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Operational cost | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Implementation cost | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
| Resource consumption | `<...>` | `<target>` | |
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic recommendation policy
|
||||
|
||||
`<disabled | advisory | enabled-with-approval | enabled-with-bounded-autonomy>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Complexity Budget
|
||||
|
||||
Complexity is a constrained resource.
|
||||
|
||||
### Complexity dimensions
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Current | Preferred | Maximum | Scoring method |
|
||||
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
|
||||
| Surface area | | | | |
|
||||
| Concept count | | | | |
|
||||
| Operation count | | | | |
|
||||
| Parameter dimensionality | | | | |
|
||||
| Semantic overlap | | | | |
|
||||
| Alternative-path count | | | | |
|
||||
| Dependency count | | | | |
|
||||
| Backend composition count | | | | |
|
||||
| Exception count | | | | |
|
||||
| Active revision count | | | | |
|
||||
| Cognitive load | | | | |
|
||||
|
||||
### Complexity policy
|
||||
|
||||
- New capability SHOULD replace or generalize existing capability where reasonable.
|
||||
- Semantic duplication SHOULD be rejected unless justified.
|
||||
- Repeated special-case pressure SHOULD trigger abstraction review.
|
||||
- Candidates exceeding a hard complexity limit MUST NOT be autonomously promoted.
|
||||
- Complexity-reducing adaptations MAY be prioritized during consolidation regimes.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 11. Compatibility Policy
|
||||
|
||||
### Compatibility posture
|
||||
|
||||
`<STRICT | VERSIONED | MANAGED_MIGRATION | CUSTOM>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- Published revision semantics MUST NOT change silently.
|
||||
- Breaking changes REQUIRE a successor revision.
|
||||
- `<additional policy>`
|
||||
- `<additional policy>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Coexistence expectations
|
||||
|
||||
**Default maximum concurrent major revisions:**
|
||||
`<number>`
|
||||
|
||||
**Default deprecation period:**
|
||||
`<duration or policy>`
|
||||
|
||||
**Migration assistance required:**
|
||||
`<yes/no + details>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 12. Revision and Experiment Policy
|
||||
|
||||
### Revision classes
|
||||
|
||||
- stable;
|
||||
- candidate;
|
||||
- experiment;
|
||||
- deprecated;
|
||||
- retired.
|
||||
|
||||
### Allowed concurrent exposure
|
||||
|
||||
| Revision class | Production traffic allowed? | Max share | Approval required? |
|
||||
|---|---|---:|---|
|
||||
| stable | yes | 100% | no |
|
||||
| candidate | `<yes/no>` | `<%>` | `<policy>` |
|
||||
| experiment | `<yes/no>` | `<%>` | `<policy>` |
|
||||
| deprecated | yes | `<%>` | no |
|
||||
| retired | no | 0% | n/a |
|
||||
|
||||
### Evolution velocity controls
|
||||
|
||||
The Daimon SHOULD slow or freeze promotion when:
|
||||
|
||||
- `<regression condition>`
|
||||
- `<reliability threshold>`
|
||||
- `<security event>`
|
||||
- `<budget condition>`
|
||||
|
||||
The Daimon MAY accelerate experimentation when:
|
||||
|
||||
- `<confidence condition>`
|
||||
- `<success-rate condition>`
|
||||
- `<available capacity condition>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 13. Hypothesis Policy
|
||||
|
||||
Nontrivial adaptations SHOULD have explicit hypotheses.
|
||||
|
||||
### Minimum evidence for hypothesis creation
|
||||
|
||||
- `<threshold>`
|
||||
- `<cohort diversity requirement>`
|
||||
- `<observation duration>`
|
||||
- `<manual exception>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Required hypothesis fields
|
||||
|
||||
- observation;
|
||||
- explanation;
|
||||
- proposed adaptation;
|
||||
- expected outcome;
|
||||
- measurement;
|
||||
- success criteria;
|
||||
- guardrails;
|
||||
- complexity impact;
|
||||
- risk;
|
||||
- expected learning value.
|
||||
|
||||
### Competing hypotheses
|
||||
|
||||
`<allowed / encouraged / restricted>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Reach preference
|
||||
|
||||
Describe whether broad explanatory hypotheses should be favored over local fixes.
|
||||
|
||||
`<policy>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 14. Adaptation Authority
|
||||
|
||||
Define what the Daimon may do automatically.
|
||||
|
||||
| Adaptation class | Observe | Propose | Generate | Experiment | Promote |
|
||||
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
|
||||
| Presentation | yes | yes | `<yes/no>` | `<yes/no>` | `<yes/no>` |
|
||||
| Contract | yes | yes | `<yes/no>` | `<yes/no>` | `<yes/no>` |
|
||||
| Composition | yes | yes | `<yes/no>` | `<yes/no>` | `<yes/no>` |
|
||||
| Implementation | yes | yes | `<yes/no>` | `<yes/no>` | `<yes/no>` |
|
||||
| Requirement escalation | yes | yes | yes | n/a | n/a |
|
||||
|
||||
### Absolute prohibitions
|
||||
|
||||
The Daimon MUST NOT autonomously:
|
||||
|
||||
- expand authorization scope;
|
||||
- weaken tenant isolation;
|
||||
- bypass deterministic security controls;
|
||||
- reinterpret legal constraints;
|
||||
- create backend authority it does not possess;
|
||||
- `<additional prohibition>`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 15. Security Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
### Authentication
|
||||
|
||||
`<requirements>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Authorization
|
||||
|
||||
`<requirements>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Tenant isolation
|
||||
|
||||
`<requirements>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Data handling
|
||||
|
||||
`<requirements>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Logging and provenance
|
||||
|
||||
`<requirements>`
|
||||
|
||||
### AI boundary
|
||||
|
||||
AI-generated changes MUST pass deterministic:
|
||||
|
||||
- security policy;
|
||||
- tests;
|
||||
- authorization validation;
|
||||
- tenant-boundary checks;
|
||||
- release controls.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 16. Quality Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
| Quality attribute | Requirement | Hard guardrail? |
|
||||
|---|---|---:|
|
||||
| Correctness | `<requirement>` | yes |
|
||||
| Availability | `<requirement>` | `<yes/no>` |
|
||||
| Reliability | `<requirement>` | `<yes/no>` |
|
||||
| p95 latency | `<requirement>` | `<yes/no>` |
|
||||
| Error rate | `<requirement>` | `<yes/no>` |
|
||||
| Security | `<requirement>` | yes |
|
||||
| Auditability | `<requirement>` | yes |
|
||||
| Rollback | `<requirement>` | yes |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 17. Economic Constraints
|
||||
|
||||
### Adaptive compute budget
|
||||
|
||||
| Budget | Limit |
|
||||
|---|---:|
|
||||
| analysis per day | `<value>` |
|
||||
| hypothesis generation | `<value>` |
|
||||
| candidate generation | `<value>` |
|
||||
| concurrent experiments | `<value>` |
|
||||
| autonomous implementation effort | `<value>` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Cost policy
|
||||
|
||||
- Adaptive budget exhaustion MUST NOT affect deterministic runtime availability.
|
||||
- High-cost / low-value hypotheses SHOULD be deferred.
|
||||
- `<additional rule>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 18. Backend Capability Escalation
|
||||
|
||||
When a candidate requires backend functionality that is unavailable, the Daimon SHOULD issue a structured capability requirement.
|
||||
|
||||
### Preferred requirement destination
|
||||
|
||||
`<service / queue / repo / protocol>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Required response states
|
||||
|
||||
- ACCEPTED;
|
||||
- PLANNED;
|
||||
- AVAILABLE;
|
||||
- PARTIALLY_AVAILABLE;
|
||||
- OUT_OF_SCOPE;
|
||||
- REJECTED;
|
||||
- SUPERSEDED.
|
||||
|
||||
### Boundary-learning policy
|
||||
|
||||
Repeated `OUT_OF_SCOPE` or `REJECTED` responses SHOULD trigger:
|
||||
|
||||
`<intent review / neighboring interface proposal / consumer expectation correction / other>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 19. Audit and Provenance Policy
|
||||
|
||||
For every promoted change the system MUST retain enough evidence to reconstruct:
|
||||
|
||||
- originating pressure;
|
||||
- hypothesis;
|
||||
- candidate;
|
||||
- verification;
|
||||
- approval;
|
||||
- deployment;
|
||||
- affected cohorts;
|
||||
- measured outcome;
|
||||
- final disposition.
|
||||
|
||||
### Retention period
|
||||
|
||||
`<duration>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Immutable evidence store
|
||||
|
||||
`<location / technology / policy>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 20. Review and Amendment
|
||||
|
||||
This document SHOULD be versioned.
|
||||
|
||||
Changes to this document SHOULD be treated as governance changes rather than ordinary interface changes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Amendment authority
|
||||
|
||||
`<role / mechanism>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Review cadence
|
||||
|
||||
`<cadence>`
|
||||
|
||||
### Last reviewed
|
||||
|
||||
`<date>`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 21. Summary
|
||||
|
||||
The FLUID Daimon SHOULD optimize aggressively **inside** this document and remain conservative **at** its boundaries.
|
||||
|
||||
The interface may evolve.
|
||||
|
||||
Its intent must remain explicit.
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue