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

505 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
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.
Reference in a new issue View git blame Copy permalink