67 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
67 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
|
# Research cycle optimization
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Date: 2026-09-25. Reviewer: codex, self-review.
|
|||
|
|
Question: can we avoid redundant inference while making the first application test
|
|||
|
|
expose concrete research needs? No new paid live calls or source collection this cycle.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Execution policy and verification
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
New conditional-v1 workspaces screen candidate ledgers before continuing. Zero/one
|
|||
|
|
candidate produces an empty relation set deterministically; multiple candidates permit
|
|||
|
|
one relation call which must pass endpoint/evidence-field checks. A deterministic
|
|||
|
|
editorial checklist replaces automatic model self-critique. This prevents the repeated
|
|||
|
|
claim-ID relation failure from propagating and avoids treating self-approval as validation.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Explicit reuse checks completed-run/cache integrity and fingerprints source, prompts,
|
|||
|
|
workflow, adapter settings and code. Matching stages replay with origin provenance;
|
|||
|
|
failed runs and changed inputs cannot silently qualify. Reuse is not freshness checking
|
|||
|
|
of an external runtime profile. Current call/token accounting excludes cached responses.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Tests cover zero/one/two-candidate branches, valid/invalid edges, malformed candidates,
|
|||
|
|
zero-call replay, changed source/prompt/fixture/model, cache corruption and failed-run
|
|||
|
|
rejection. A local mock llm-connect HTTP service verifies execution/reuse accounting.
|
|||
|
|
The checked-in synthetic smoke used two fixture calls; its replay used zero. Relative
|
|||
|
|
to four historical calls, those branches remove two calls or all fresh calls respectively.
|
|||
|
|
This is a call-count result, not a measured percentage reduction in live cost or quality.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Compact records and structured candidate/relation ledgers remain the output contract.
|
|||
|
|
Source locators stay in the evidence ledger/prose. A structured report distinguishes
|
|||
|
|
structural rejections from unassessed editorial corrections. The review-metrics template
|
|||
|
|
requires individual findings before counts can mean anything.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## First application test
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
[VC-02 walkthrough](../walkthroughs/VC02-OfflineFieldNotes.md) connects Local Commit
|
|||
|
|
Boundary, Pending Synchronization, Conflict Copy and Explicit Reconciliation. These
|
|||
|
|
are four research hypotheses, not canonical patterns. It traces a restart, divergent
|
|||
|
|
edits, preserved conflict, explicit resolution and lost acknowledgement. Removing
|
|||
|
|
concurrent writers removes conflict-specific steps while retaining persistence/retry.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The baseline narrative can already describe the same architecture. The proposed benefit
|
|||
|
|
of the vocabulary is exposing acknowledgement and recovery boundaries for review;
|
|||
|
|
independent evidence of improved decision quality remains unknown. Explicit Reconciliation
|
|||
|
|
may be merged into Conflict Copy if it adds no independent retrieval/application value.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Editorial corrections made in this cycle
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- Replaced one ambiguous saved/synced interpretation with three explicit boundaries:
|
|||
|
|
local commit, receiver acknowledgement and semantic resolution (VC-02 trace).
|
|||
|
|
- Narrowed restart survival to a stated storage-transaction assumption; no power-loss
|
|||
|
|
guarantee is inferred from a local database being present (VC-02 assumptions/failures).
|
|||
|
|
- Rejected the implication that a receiver acknowledgement proves all-device convergence
|
|||
|
|
or backup availability (VC-02 steps 9–10).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
These are three recorded design corrections, not model-error-rate measurements. The
|
|||
|
|
synthetic smoke has not received substantive research review and does not inherit them.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Next questions, ranked by walkthrough impact
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Select and verify a storage acknowledgement/atomicity contract under interruption.
|
|||
|
|
2. Locate and test receiver deduplication plus revision ancestry under a lost response.
|
|||
|
|
3. Define keyboard/screen-reader conflict discovery and resolution acceptance checks.
|
|||
|
|
4. Contrast VC-01's global validation requirement before generalizing these relations.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
T02 owns targeted evidence; T03 now owns the draft walkthrough and connected candidate
|
|||
|
|
set. Runtime proof, canonical admission, VC-01 and the full M1 gate remain unfinished.
|
|||
|
|
No further broad extraction is justified until it answers one of these questions.
|