26 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
26 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
|
# Local-first source review — authority placement
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Status: extracted; initial manual review, 2026-09-24, codex (self-review).
|
||
|
|
Source: SRC-0002, Kleppmann, Wiggins, van Hardenberg and McGranaghan,
|
||
|
|
[April 2019 web essay](https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/local-first/).
|
||
|
|
Conference DOI: 10.1145/3359591.3359737. No API-generated findings.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
| Claim | Original locator | Source statement, paraphrased | Our interpretation |
|
||
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||
|
|
| C01 | Seven ideals, paragraph 3 | The device's data copy becomes primary rather than subordinate to a server. | Local Authority differs from caching. |
|
||
|
|
| C02 | Ideal 3, paragraph beginning Since local-first applications | Local reading/writing can continue offline; synchronization follows connectivity. | Commit location and synchronization timing are separate decisions. |
|
||
|
|
| C03 | Introduction, paragraph beginning The software we are talking about | The discussion targets documents and personal repositories, excluding several centralized service domains. | Do not generalize the proposal to every transaction. |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
C02/C03 were checked manually beyond the bench excerpt.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Limits and counterexample
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A hypothetical shared inventory reservation requires a separate concurrency argument;
|
||
|
|
local durability alone does not prove that a reservation is globally valid.
|
||
|
|
The excerpt does not establish a merge algorithm or access-revocation semantics.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Disposition
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Retain Local Authority as a hypothesis candidate. Review persistence, synchronization,
|
||
|
|
conflict handling and independent implementations before admission or maturity changes.
|