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

Audit open work and define a bounded language 0.1 preview

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 02:19:31 +02:00
parent 5db2d0fdb0
commit 39fea9046e
6 changed files with 217 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
SCOPE.md
View file

@ -86,6 +86,10 @@ held-out retrieval and real-repository applicability, subject to its recorded ga
review dates and comparable-cycle measurement. Actionable work stays in workplans;
this file describes boundaries, not a second backlog.
[WP-0007](workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md) proposes a finite 0.1 research
preview: curated candidate reference paths, two core sequences, scoped mappings and
a candidate export. This is not a declared release or a replacement for M1/M2/M3.
The [2026-09-27 scope–intent assessment](history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md)
records the current gaps and recommended priorities. Future assessments should
preserve that historical judgment and cite changed evidence.

2
TREE.md
View file

@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ canon/Responsibilities.md
canon/Scales.md
canon/vocabulary.yaml
history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md
history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md
patterns/README.md
patterns/address/README.md
patterns/affordance/README.md
@ -509,4 +510,5 @@ workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md
workplans/FEP-WP-0004-reference-surface.md
workplans/FEP-WP-0005-research-bench-setup.md
workplans/FEP-WP-0006-language-evolution.md
workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md
```

108
history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
# Open workplans and a useful language 0.1
Reviewed: 2026-09-27T02:16:59+02:00, Europe/Berlin. Baseline: `5db2d0f`.
Reviewer: Codex, author-model repository audit, not independent validation.
## Conclusion
A useful **0.1 research preview** is feasible from this corpus, after a bounded
consolidation and packaging pass. Finishing every research task is neither necessary
nor currently supported by the evidence. Publication version, editorial completeness
and evidence maturity must remain separate. This audit does not declare a release,
close M1/M2/M3, change task status or confer canonical admission.
The bottleneck is now making the accumulated knowledge navigable and usable: a reader
should be able to start with a problem, follow a short decision sequence, compare
alternatives and reach evidence-qualified candidate guidance. More source collection
alone will not provide that reference surface.
## Inventory and source of truth
Six file-owned workplans: two finished (0001, 0005), three active (0002, 0003, 0006),
one proposed (0004). Eighteen task blocks: nine done, four progress, five todo.
The nine open tasks are assessed below. Generated WORK-RECORDS.md and the offline
brief are stale; they omit recent work/status changes. Use source workplans and the
current State Hub reconciliation receipt, not those historical generated summaries.
Inventory correction: the initial **compact candidate table has 16 seeds**, whereas
[patterns/README.md](../patterns/README.md) contains **59 broader seed names**, already
present at initial commit `2a5dabd`. The earlier 7 developed / 9 undeveloped comparison
applies only to the compact table. It is not coverage of all initial ideas. Neither
list is a release quota. There are still 17 developed candidate records, all hypotheses.
## Task-by-task disposition
| Workplan / task | What exists | What prevents honest closure | Recommended handling for 0.1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0002 T02 — source evidence (progress) | Carniato/local-first reviews, source locators, later conflict/recovery and implementation studies | Initial source records still say extracted; later task notes accumulated storage/receiver/recurrence obligations | Near closure of its original source-review deliverable: write a final source assessment, reconcile statuses and explicitly hand implementation residuals to live tasks. Do not simply mark all evidence work done. |
| 0002 T03 — connected corpus (progress) | Eight connected recovery drafts, VC-01/02 synthetic traces, frozen pilot and submitted model review | M1-SeedReview.md absent; independent human validation/fresh replication still open in task history; usefulness unproven | Produce an honest pass/revise/defer M1 review. Package its supported subset while preserving open validation; no forced M1 pass. |
| 0003 T01 — six streams (progress) | Coverage matrix; documentary material in A–F; extensive B/D/E/F slices and C/D comparison | Independent known uses and complete contracts uneven; bounded Zulip and authority/projection follow-ups remain | Consolidate evidence per stream and name residuals. Further source work only if a release claim depends on it; do not make every interesting follow-up a 0.1 dependency. |
| 0003 T02 — contrasting walkthroughs (todo) | VC-03 and VC-06 provisional; coverage inventory for ten cases | M1 prerequisite open; VC-04/05 absent, VC-03/06 not completed | Keep full M2 coverage post-preview. For 0.1, expose two existing core traces and clearly label provisional/unsupported cases. |
| 0003 T03 — ontology/M2 review (todo) | Seed dispositions, classification mappings and authority/projection decision aid | No M2-CoverageReview.md; case gate open; relation/overlap questions remain | Record a bounded ontology review of the published subset, including Conflict Copy / Explicit Reconciliation. Full M2 stays open. |
| 0004 T01 — metadata/graph (todo) | Schema examples, candidate IDs, classification/evolution checks | Full PatternSchema validation/admitted graph absent; M1 prerequisite open | A candidate-only index/export can support the preview under WP-0007. It must label proposed relations and does not complete this gated canonical task. |
| 0004 T02 — held-out retrieval (todo) | Consumed six-pair development pilot, equal adjudicated totals | M2 prerequisite and fresh held-out comparison unmet; human usefulness unresolved | Defer formal M3 evaluation; perform disclosed development navigation checks for preview usability only. Use llm-connect if live inference is needed. |
| 0004 T03 — real repositories (todo) | Pinned Zulip/Element and feature-example slices | At least two contrasting whole-task applicability studies and M3-EmpiricalReview.md absent | Reuse partial source findings with explicit limits. Do not count file reads or example repos as the completed M3 gate. |
| 0006 T03 — comparable cycles (progress) | Five prospective cycles, protocols, effort, snapshots and report | Five different groups; no comparable trend window; 14 unknown substantive-review dates | Reconcile dates where supported and publish unknowns. Keep longitudinal work live beyond 0.1; do not manufacture cycles to finish a task. |
WP-0001 and WP-0005 remain finished. No existing open workplan can be declared fully
finished by this audit. In particular, tests and many research receipts do not substitute
for its specified review artifact or independent validation.
## Proposed 0.1 release contract
The proposed [WP-0007](../workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md) owns packaging
and release review, avoiding duplicate ownership of empirical tasks.
A reader should be able to:
1. Start from a transactional or offline problem and identify assumptions and forces.
2. Follow one of two short decision sequences to a connected core subset of the
existing candidates, with alternatives, resulting contexts and failure boundaries.
3. Find all seventeen drafts through family/scale/responsibility/force indexes; tell
developed candidates from the 16 compact and 59 broader seed inventories.
4. Reach evidence-qualified implementation examples for both core cases without
mistaking a mechanism example for a certified complete implementation.
5. Export stable research identities and proposed relations with provenance and
limitations; inspect current evidence and the history of revisions.
6. See what is unsupported, how to report a counterexample and what changes in later
versions. Hypothesis status remains visible at point of use.
Release acceptance: references resolve, identities are stable, proposed edges have
rationale and sources/unknowns, source/draft ownership is clear, and development
navigation checks expose no unresolved misleading claims. Existing appropriate tests
pass. The release review identifies reviewer role and evidence limits, pins the
corpus revision, and lists open validation tasks. This is a practical reference
preview—not an empirical claim that the language improves decisions.
Excluded from the preview gate: all 59 seeds developed, every case complete, canonical
maturity, general framework coverage, proven production guarantees, independent human
usefulness, and diminishing-returns measurement. These exclusions change the preview
boundary, not the acceptance criteria of the existing research milestones.
## Order of work
1. Reconcile source/seed/ontology review artifacts against actual evidence; classify
acceptance criteria as pass, revise or defer. Transfer residuals into explicit live
task records before finishing any workplan. No historical evidence rewriting.
2. Curate the existing eight recovery candidates as the initial connected core, with
the remaining nine available as extension hypotheses. Publish decision entry points,
two sequences and scoped technology/example mappings; avoid a new application UI.
3. Add the smallest candidate-reference export and validation needed by those paths.
Inspect selected links and decisions through fixed development queries. Preserve
the frozen pilot; do not call these fresh held-out validation.
4. Review the package as a versioned 0.1 research preview, record remaining limits and
produce release notes. Tag/publish only when that release record supports it.
The currently pending pinned-application comparison is not automatically the next
priority if consolidation is chosen. It remains live under WP-0003 T01, alongside
the Zulip residual. This audit recommends concentrating on the finite release contract
rather than allowing every new source question to extend it indefinitely.
## Evidence and limitations
Based on all six source workplans, [ResearchProgram](../research/plan/ResearchProgram.md),
[ValidationCases](../research/plan/ValidationCases.md), [Admission](../research/bench/Admission.md),
[the evolution report](../research/evolution/EvolutionReport.md), source reviews,
walkthroughs and the reference stubs. State Hub reported no FEP tasks flagged
needs_human; that administrative flag does not mean human validation is complete.
No new external research, inference or application experiment was performed.

2
research/catalog/ClassificationCoverage.md
View file

@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Generated by `python3 scripts/classification_coverage.py`; assessment: 2026-09-2
17 developed drafts; 16 original seeds at `2a5dabd`. 7 original seeds developed, 9 without dedicated drafts, 10 later additions. All current candidates remain hypotheses; classification confers no admission or new evidence.
The original comparison above is the compact 16-entry table. The broader initial [patterns README](../../patterns/README.md) lists 59 seed names; it is a separate discovery inventory, not 59 developed records or a release quota.
Families/scales come from current candidate metadata. Responsibilities and forces are provisional author-model interpretations in [ClassificationCoverage.json](ClassificationCoverage.json), with candidate hashes and per-record rationale. They are separate from canonical metadata.
Count a candidate once per assigned label; labels overlap. Responsibilities describe the direct mechanism, not every prerequisite or downstream effect. Forces are selected trade-offs, not exhaustive coverage or measured outcomes.

1
scripts/classification_coverage.py
View file

@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ def render():
uncovered = [r[0] for r in seed_rows if r[0] not in covered]
lines = ['# Classification coverage', '', 'Generated by `python3 scripts/classification_coverage.py`; assessment: ' + data['assessed_at'] + '.', '',
f"{len(records)} developed drafts; {len(seed_rows)} original seeds at `{INITIAL}`. {len(covered)} original seeds developed, {len(uncovered)} without dedicated drafts, {len(records)-len(covered)} later additions. All current candidates remain hypotheses; classification confers no admission or new evidence.", '',
'The original comparison above is the compact 16-entry table. The broader initial [patterns README](../../patterns/README.md) lists 59 seed names; it is a separate discovery inventory, not 59 developed records or a release quota.', '',
'Families/scales come from current candidate metadata. Responsibilities and forces are provisional author-model interpretations in [ClassificationCoverage.json](ClassificationCoverage.json), with candidate hashes and per-record rationale. They are separate from canonical metadata.', '',
data['counting_rule'], '', 'A zero means no assigned direct coverage, not absence of discussion. Force direction describes an intended favorable effect or accepted cost, not a measured result. A classification refresh requires reading changed candidates; do not merely replace hashes.', '',
'## Families', '', '| Family | Original seeds | Developed drafts |', '| --- | ---: | ---: |']

100
workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
---
id: FEP-WP-0007
type: workplan
title: "Package a useful language 0.1 research preview"
domain: infotech
repo: frontend-patterns
status: proposed
owner: codex
topic_slug: canon
created: "2026-09-27"
updated: "2026-09-27"
---
# Package a useful language 0.1 research preview
Proposed from the user-requested [workplan audit](../history/2026-09-27T021659+0200-workplans-v01-readiness.md).
This is a finite packaging and editorial review plan, not a declaration of release or
an evidence-gate replacement. Existing M1/M2/M3 and canonical-admission criteria remain
unchanged. The published corpus may contain hypotheses with stable CAND identities;
publication version 0.1 is separate from PatternSchema 0.1 and evidence maturity.
## Reconcile the release subset and milestone assessments
```task
id: FEP-WP-0007-T01
status: todo
priority: high
```
Work with WP-0002 T02/T03 and WP-0003 T03 to produce explicit pass/revise/defer reviews
of source readiness, the connected core and ontology. Start with the eight existing
transactional/local-first recovery drafts; retain other candidates as qualified
extensions. Decide whether Conflict Copy and Explicit Reconciliation need separate
retrieval, with reasons. Record the subset in a release manifest; do not move drafts
into patterns/ or assign FEP IDs without their admission review.
Done when each core record has context, forces, proposed solution, alternatives,
consequences, evidence and gaps checked, and the milestone review distinguishes
editorial readiness from unmet empirical gates. Do not claim human validation from
model review. Keep source assessment ownership in WP-0002, ontology in WP-0003.
## Publish the human reference paths
```task
id: FEP-WP-0007-T02
status: todo
priority: high
```
After T01, create a concise starting guide, two decision sequences grounded in VC-01/02,
and at least one evidence-qualified implementation mapping for each core case. Index
all seventeen candidates without presenting unreviewed seed names as developed records.
Document compatible configurations, rejected alternatives and unsupported needs.
Reuse and link existing source/candidate records; avoid divergent duplicate contracts.
Done when a reader can move from either supported problem to a small configuration,
its implementation options and its failure/evidence limits without reading the research
history. Provisional VC-03/06 remain clearly labeled extensions; no complete coverage
claim for the remaining cases. No standalone frontend application required.
## Validate candidate reference export and development navigation
```task
id: FEP-WP-0007-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
```
After T01/T02, export the smallest useful candidate-reference representation: stable
CAND identities, families/scales, provisional classification, proposed typed relations,
rationale and evidence locators or explicit unknowns. Validate identities, endpoints,
allowed vocabulary and references. Test invalid references and malformed records.
This candidate surface is separate from WP-0004 T01's M1-gated canonical graph.
Record at least six disclosed development queries across the two supported contexts,
including incompatible constraints, missing context and an unsupported need. Verify
reference paths, alternatives and abstention boundaries; fix misleading claims before
release. These are development checks, not the M2-gated held-out M3 evaluation or
independent human usefulness proof. Use llm-connect for any live inference; model
execution is optional if deterministic/manual checks answer the reference question.
## Review and record the 0.1 preview
```task
id: FEP-WP-0007-T04
status: todo
priority: high
```
After T01–T03, write a release review and notes, pin the corpus revision and publish
the evidence profile, supported contexts and known limits. Check the human entry
points, exports and applicable test targets. Record reviewer role; zero unsupported
maturity/production/usefulness claims is required. Define how later versions record
corrections and counterexamples. Do not use catalog size as acceptance.
Only mark the preview ready when the review passes its bounded contract. No tag or
release claim from this proposed plan alone. Existing research work stays open unless
its own criteria are met; before finishing this workplan, hand residual release issues
to explicit live tasks with origin references. The empirical owners remain WP-0002
T03, WP-0003 T01/T02/T03, WP-0004 T01/T02/T03 and WP-0006 T03.