coulomb/frontend-patterns
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Record first authority investigation and preserve failed live-run evidence

Browse source 
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra
Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-24 15:43:59 +02:00
parent 0839ec0600
commit 1f95f6389a
13 changed files with 268 additions and 79 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

19
research/bench/README.md
View file

@ -99,14 +99,14 @@ provider call was made during setup.
| Investigation | Input readiness | Work record |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Carniato first source case | SRC-0001 verified; bounded authority/feedback workspace prepared | FEP-WP-0002-T02 |
| Contrasting local-first source | SRC-0002 verified; bounded authority workspace prepared | FEP-WP-0002-T02 |
| Carniato first source case | Initial manual review recorded; provider attempt failed | FEP-WP-0002-T02 |
| Contrasting local-first source | Initial manual review recorded; provider attempt failed | FEP-WP-0002-T02 |
| VC-01 and VC-02 synthesis | Depends on reviewed source claims and candidate patterns | FEP-WP-0002-T03 |
Do not ingest the existing Carniato research stub as if it were the original article.
Prepared primary-source plans (four calls each; not yet executed):
Primary-source plans (four calls each; each run failed on its first call):
```bash
../infospace-bench/.venv/bin/python scripts/research_bench.py plan research/bench/infospaces/carniato-authority-01
@ -115,3 +115,16 @@ Prepared primary-source plans (four calls each; not yet executed):
These short packets isolate the first comparison question. They do not substitute
for full source review, independent known uses or the two architecture walkthroughs.
## Live pilot outcome — 2026-09-24
Both primary-source runs attempted Gemini 2.5 Flash through OpenRouter and failed
before producing research artifacts. A separate credential probe returned HTTP 401.
Their failed receipts remain immutable. Read [AuthorityPilot](../reviews/AuthorityPilot.md)
for the manual review that continued independently. New runs require a working
credential authorized for this client and fresh workspace slugs.
Failure receipts now capture adapter/model and safe structured diagnostic fields;
raw provider error bodies, headers and credential values are never persisted.
The initial failed receipts predate this improvement; the review records their model.

26
research/bench/infospaces/carniato-authority-01/reports/research-run.json Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
{
"root": "/home/worsch/frontend-patterns/research/bench/infospaces/carniato-authority-01",
"workflow": "frontend-source-investigation",
"source_sha256": "a4ef36bb7d4530106cde8b85281e88c7632e9a28d9f0596cda2f405442d80888",
"evidence_kind": "primary",
"stages": [
"claims",
"candidates",
"relations",
"critique"
],
"provider_calls": 4,
"cost_usd": "unknown; call limit is not a dollar budget",
"review_status": "unreviewed",
"input_digests": {
"infospace.yaml": "0f52be84e24f426e5851f905c462c2ca959f08d528b187b58e84a6170e683952",
"profile/templates/candidates.md": "a1b101ec9ad8727be0cfb4b495eaa07b8715b21e5fb089ff3bbf3378d97ab592",
"profile/templates/claims.md": "1dbaea092a7d2e5acbf5e0ef0a2a7caa3d1b3ee7a84196d47e34a10b2514fae7",
"profile/templates/critique.md": "c8da28d03ae204324136c2f26f0602fdb43fdc2a360f0b305493b96502d934cf",
"profile/templates/relations.md": "159310e2b63d84fe67e0866f79c12099232a1b45c7c5e09793a3767a0a03ebe4",
"profile/workflow.yaml": "e0f3075dc9d896369dd45dc4da3577eb314cb4ef0e4414f905af68ec77cf5b72"
},
"status": "failed",
"error_type": "InfospaceError",
"provider_calls_attempted": 1
}

26
research/bench/infospaces/local-first-authority-01/reports/research-run.json Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
{
"root": "/home/worsch/frontend-patterns/research/bench/infospaces/local-first-authority-01",
"workflow": "frontend-source-investigation",
"source_sha256": "c32ea4843ba1be9a2da7ef90e4b6dffab26f106a33dd881aee6048b6c3d027f7",
"evidence_kind": "primary",
"stages": [
"claims",
"candidates",
"relations",
"critique"
],
"provider_calls": 4,
"cost_usd": "unknown; call limit is not a dollar budget",
"review_status": "unreviewed",
"input_digests": {
"infospace.yaml": "4e5a557c5f9e8a3e7c38bb578aa58d6336791bd241ecb84fc58164f3795d8889",
"profile/templates/candidates.md": "a1b101ec9ad8727be0cfb4b495eaa07b8715b21e5fb089ff3bbf3378d97ab592",
"profile/templates/claims.md": "1dbaea092a7d2e5acbf5e0ef0a2a7caa3d1b3ee7a84196d47e34a10b2514fae7",
"profile/templates/critique.md": "c8da28d03ae204324136c2f26f0602fdb43fdc2a360f0b305493b96502d934cf",
"profile/templates/relations.md": "159310e2b63d84fe67e0866f79c12099232a1b45c7c5e09793a3767a0a03ebe4",
"profile/workflow.yaml": "e0f3075dc9d896369dd45dc4da3577eb314cb4ef0e4414f905af68ec77cf5b72"
},
"status": "failed",
"error_type": "InfospaceError",
"provider_calls_attempted": 1
}

90
research/cases/CarniatoGrandUnifyingArchitecture.md
View file

@ -1,79 +1,25 @@
# Case Study — The Grand Unifying Architecture of Frontend
# Carniato source review — authority and feedback
Status: initial research stub
Status: extracted; initial manual review, 2026-09-24, codex (self-review).
Source: SRC-0001, Ryan Carniato, [original article](https://dev.to/playfulprogramming/the-grand-unifying-architecture-of-frontend-bhk).
Edition and date uncertainty: see the source catalog. No API-generated findings.
Source:
Ryan Carniato, "The Grand Unifying Architecture of Frontend".
| Claim | Original locator | Source statement, paraphrased | Our interpretation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C01 | Core Responsibilities, Content, paragraph 1 | Content authority resides on the server. | Authority placement is an assumption of this model. |
| C02 | Core Responsibilities, Affordances, paragraph 1 | Interaction feedback should precede a server round trip. | Local feedback need not imply local authority. |
| C03 | Content: Reactive reads over the wire, final paragraph | The live graph must be reconstructible from durable state. | Projection state and durable authority should be distinguished. |
## Why this source matters
C03 was checked manually in the original; it is outside the bench excerpt.
The article attempts to unify several modern frontend architectures beneath framework-specific terminology.
## Limits and counterexample
Its most useful conceptual move is the decomposition:
The article's universal framing is broader than this review supports. Local-first
primary data challenges mandatory server authority; it does not refute separating
responsibilities. Framework implementation claims and examples were not executed.
```text
Navigation → Content → Affordance
```
## Disposition
with a characteristic movement:
```text
client → server → client
```
for server-authoritative applications.
## Initial interpretation
### Navigation
Contains aspects of:
- addressability,
- routing,
- user intent,
- mutation initiation.
### Content
Contains aspects of:
- authority,
- server-side state,
- projection.
### Affordance
Contains aspects of:
- local interaction state,
- speculative state,
- immediate feedback.
## Main qualification
The model strongly fits server-authoritative web applications.
It should not be promoted unchanged into the general canon because:
- local-first systems may treat local data as primary,
- replicated systems may have multiple authorities,
- peer-to-peer systems may lack a distinguished server,
- microfrontend concerns cut across this axis,
- internal modularity is largely orthogonal to it.
## Research tasks
- extract concrete architecture examples from the article,
- identify all implicit assumptions,
- map each example to responsibility dimensions,
- identify candidate patterns,
- compare against:
- local-first,
- HTMX/hypermedia,
- SPA,
- server components,
- islands,
- LiveView-style persistent server interaction,
- identify where the model is descriptive versus normative,
- determine which concepts should enter the canon.
Retain Server Authority and Immediate Feedback as candidates. Do not infer a
requires edge between them. Recurrence and failure behavior need further evidence.
Broader architecture comparisons remain open under FEP-WP-0002-T02/T03.

25
research/cases/LocalFirstAuthority.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
# 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.

16
research/catalog/PatternCandidateCatalog.md
View file

@ -22,3 +22,19 @@ This file tracks concepts before promotion into canonical pattern files.
| Failure Boundary | quality | L5/L6 | seed | fault containment |
`seed` means "worth researching", not "accepted into the canon".
## First investigation dispositions — 2026-09-24
See [AuthorityPilot](../reviews/AuthorityPilot.md). These are manual source-review
outcomes, not successful bench extraction or canonical admission.
| Candidate | Evidence reference | Disposition / question |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Server Authority | SRC-0001, Carniato review C01 | Retain; identify precisely which data and decisions it governs |
| Immediate Feedback | SRC-0001, Carniato review C02 | Add seed; feedback should distinguish tentative from durable/accepted state |
| Local Authority | SRC-0002, local-first review C01 | Retain; test primary ownership versus cache behavior |
| Scoped Authority | Cross-source interpretation in AuthorityPilot | Defer new pattern; may belong in context requirements instead |
No recurrence, established maturity, known uses or required dependency edges are
claimed by these dispositions. Other seed candidates remain unassessed.

10
research/catalog/SourceCatalog.md
View file

@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
| ID | Source and edition | State | Prepared input |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SRC-0001 | Ryan Carniato, [The Grand Unifying Architecture of Frontend](https://dev.to/playfulprogramming/the-grand-unifying-architecture-of-frontend-bhk); web edition accessed 2026-09-24; displayed Sep 22, year unverified | queued; identity checked, bounded passages prepared | [Authority and feedback packet](../bench/infospaces/carniato-authority-01/artifacts/sources/source.md) |
| SRC-0002 | Martin Kleppmann, Adam Wiggins, Peter van Hardenberg, Mark McGranaghan, [Local-first software](https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/local-first/); April 2019 web essay; DOI 10.1145/3359591.3359737; accessed 2026-09-24 | queued; identity checked, bounded passage prepared | [Local authority packet](../bench/infospaces/local-first-authority-01/artifacts/sources/source.md) |
| SRC-0001 | Ryan Carniato, [The Grand Unifying Architecture of Frontend](https://dev.to/playfulprogramming/the-grand-unifying-architecture-of-frontend-bhk); web edition accessed 2026-09-24; displayed Sep 22, year unverified | extracted; [initial manual review](../cases/CarniatoGrandUnifyingArchitecture.md); live run failed | [Authority and feedback packet](../bench/infospaces/carniato-authority-01/artifacts/sources/source.md) |
| SRC-0002 | Martin Kleppmann, Adam Wiggins, Peter van Hardenberg, Mark McGranaghan, [Local-first software](https://www.inkandswitch.com/essay/local-first/); April 2019 web essay; DOI 10.1145/3359591.3359737; accessed 2026-09-24 | extracted; [initial manual review](../cases/LocalFirstAuthority.md); live run failed | [Local authority packet](../bench/infospaces/local-first-authority-01/artifacts/sources/source.md) |
Queued does not mean reviewed. Bibliography and hashes live in each workspace's
source artifact and manifest. [Preparation review](../reviews/SchemaAndSourcePreparation.md)
@ -41,3 +41,9 @@ Each source should eventually capture:
- contradictions,
- known implementations,
- evidence quality.
2026-09-24: initial authority-focused reviews are recorded as extracted. They have
not passed a full-source or independent review gate. Live calls failed before any
artifact generation. See [AuthorityPilot](../reviews/AuthorityPilot.md) for findings,
execution evidence and limitations.

9
research/plan/OpenQuestions.md
View file

@ -42,3 +42,12 @@ retaining a hypothesis requires evidence just as rejecting one does.
| Q05 Sequence ordering | The general sequence works with explicit branches | Test offline, collaboration and quality requirements that force earlier decisions | FEP-WP-0003 |
| Q06 Scale and boundaries | Composition and deployment are distinct dimensions | Analyze independently owned features that deploy together, and the reverse | FEP-WP-0003 |
| Q07 Retrieval | Metadata improves relevant, justified recommendations | Held-out prompts including ambiguity, incompatibility and abstention | FEP-WP-0004 |
## First-cycle update — 2026-09-24
[AuthorityPilot](../reviews/AuthorityPilot.md) records an initial manual comparison.
Q02 remains open: distinguish authority scope and acknowledgement semantics before
claiming independent responsibility dimensions. Q03 remains open because source
statements do not alone establish recurrence. Q04 awaits VC-01/VC-02 walkthroughs.
The failed provider runs are execution failures, not negative evidence for the model.

66
research/reviews/AuthorityPilot.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
# Authority pilot — first investigation
Date: 2026-09-24. Reviewer: codex, manual self-review.
Scope: prepared passages plus the explicitly located original sections in the two
source reviews. This is an initial investigation, not the M1 acceptance review.
## Execution record
Both bench workspaces attempted their claims stage with `google/gemini-2.5-flash`.
Each stopped after one adapter call; no generated claims, candidates, relations or
critiques were produced. The separate OpenRouter credential probe returned HTTP 401.
The original failure receipts record the exception type only, so that probe is
separate diagnostic evidence rather than a retroactively fabricated provider receipt.
The existing credential route inspected was for activity-core's llm-connect workload,
not generic workstation clients. No production key was retrieved or rotated. No
fallback model or hidden retries were used. Completed usage/cost metadata is absent;
we do not claim a measured zero charge. Eight planned calls did not take place.
The adapter now records model, structured error code and HTTP status where available
without persisting raw provider error details. Tests exercise the 401 path using a
synthetic secret sentinel. Existing failure receipts are preserved unchanged.
## Reviewed research result
Read [Carniato review](../cases/CarniatoGrandUnifyingArchitecture.md) and
[local-first review](../cases/LocalFirstAuthority.md) for the source claims.
The following are our proposed modeling decisions, not conclusions attributed to
both authors or proof that any pattern is established:
1. **Scope authority to particular data and decisions.** One application's draft,
published record and shared reservation can have different authority rules.
2. **Separate acknowledgement levels.** Interaction feedback, durable local save,
and globally accepted mutation should not be interchangeable states.
3. **Qualify relations.** Server Authority and Local Authority are alternatives only
for the same authority scope. They may coexist in one application. Immediate
Feedback does not require Server Authority.
4. **Make recovery explicit.** A projection or optimistic view must explain which
durable state reconstructs it and what happens after interruption or rejection.
These proposals need source expansion and scenario testing. Q02 has a useful
counterexample to server placement as a universal rule; independent variation of
all responsibilities remains unproven. Q03 recurrence and Q04 generativity are open.
## Candidate dispositions
| Workspace/candidate origin | Repository candidate | Outcome |
| --- | --- | --- |
| SRC-0001 C01, manually extracted | Server Authority | Retain candidate; qualify data scope |
| SRC-0001 C02, manually extracted | Immediate Feedback | Retain candidate; do not attach mandatory server dependency |
| SRC-0002 C01, manually extracted | Local Authority | Retain candidate; distinguish primary data from a disposable cache |
| Cross-source review hypothesis | Scoped Authority | Investigate whether this is a context rule rather than another pattern |
There are no generated P01 identities to map: the provider runs failed. No canonical
FEP IDs, pattern files, known uses or graph edges have been admitted in this pilot.
## Next bounded work
- FEP-WP-0002-T02: extend review to durability, rejected writes, synchronization and
conflicting edits; verify independent implementations. Source catalog remains
extracted, not fully reviewed.
- FEP-WP-0002-T03: test acknowledgement distinctions on VC-01 and VC-02, using the
same changed constraint: lose connectivity, restart, then reconnect.
- Live execution: a working credential authorized for this workstation client is
needed. Once available, create fresh revision workspaces; do not overwrite failed
runs or label manually written content as model-provider output.