coulomb/fluid-core
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
fluid-core/spec/InterfaceEvolutionIntent.md
tegwick c2cfe86d88 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
2026-09-04 01:49:12 +02:00

10 KiB
Executable file
Raw Blame History

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.