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

Preregister authority projection comparison

Browse source 
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra
Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-27 01:53:48 +02:00
parent b2f50aa3f3
commit 2df1d9482b
1 changed files with 51 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

51
research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-authority-projection.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
# LEARN-0015 — Separate authority from projection and delivery
Status: preregistered before new source collection. Date: 2026-09-27 Europe/Berlin.
Reviewer: Codex, author-model; no independent human validation.
Stream: cross-stream (C/D). Comparison group: CD-authority-projection-documentary-v1.
## Question and prior
Do Server/Local/Replicated Authority and Server/Client/Streaming Projection describe
six reusable patterns, or a mixture of context choices and implementation strategies?
Prior: authority is scoped to particular data/decisions, acknowledgement levels differ,
and rendering placement need not determine authority. Dedicated drafts for all six
are absent. We expect some seed labels need decomposition rather than automatic
promotion. Classification inventories are editorial priors, not empirical evidence.
## Registered method
Follow research/plan/AuthorityProjectionComparison.md: at most six primary-source
documents, at least two independent source families, with versions/access dates and
claim locators. Reuse existing local reviews as priors only. Candidate source targets:
Firestore offline/transaction documentation for cached versus accepted writes,
Automerge documentation for local replicas/merge, and SvelteKit/React documentation
for server/client projection and streaming. Select at most six substantive documents;
failed fetches and path discovery do not supply evidence. No broad source expansion.
For each seed describe authority scope, acceptance boundary, cache/replica meaning,
projection inputs, execution location and delivery timing. Produce claim table,
synthetic VC-01/VC-02 contrasting decision traces, and six retain/develop/context/
merge/reject dispositions. Seek counterexamples to server-rendered implies server
accepted and locally rendered implies locally authoritative. Unsupported combinations
remain unknown. At most two new drafts, only if distinct contracts merit them; zero
is valid. No code execution/performance/accessibility/production claim.
## Outcomes, effort and stop
One bounded question, one disposition: corroboration, revision or inconclusive (or
merge/rejection if a seed decision warrants it). Record uncertainty and preserved
hypotheses; no automatic M1/M2 or canonical admission. Existing Zulip follow-up remains
open and authored navigation fixture paused. No inference planned; any later live
model execution uses llm-connect.
Stop after six substantive documents or 45 active research minutes; allow 10 minutes
of repository verification. Start a monotonic clock after preregistration commit,
before new source collection. Active elapsed session minus timed check subprocesses
includes retrieval, interpretation and recording. Exclude preregistration and final
receipt refresh/commit/snapshot/sync administration after cutoff. Tokens/cost unknown.
Append ledger and evidence report at review boundary; update candidate profiles and
classification only if contracts change or new candidates are warranted. Snapshot
the resulting assessment even if candidate content is unchanged. Do not combine
this new documentary protocol with earlier runtime cycles to claim a trend.