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

Complete the bounded language 0.1 research preview

Browse source 
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra
Assistant-Session: 01a0e241-8285-7a63-8c0c-51c9cb824dc3
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-27 11:49:48 +02:00
parent 8cc7016e1f
commit 53bb65e7a6
26 changed files with 2497 additions and 33 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

7
research/cases/CarniatoGrandUnifyingArchitecture.md
View file

@ -23,3 +23,10 @@ responsibilities. Framework implementation claims and examples were not executed
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.
## Preview source assessment — 2026-09-27
The [bounded source-readiness review](../reviews/SourceReadiness-0.1.md) completes
editorial traceability assessment for WP-0002 T02. The original extraction above is
preserved; external claims were not re-fetched. Implementation/recurrence and human
validation remain open in the named successor tasks; no maturity promotion.

7
research/cases/LocalFirstAuthority.md
View file

@ -42,3 +42,10 @@ uses. It supports a separate Conflict Copy candidate and distinguishes local-pri
storage from globally winning every merge. Earlier fragment-only negative findings
remain valid for their limited packets. Crash durability and runtime recovery remain
untested; this source review is still extracted rather than fully reviewed.
## Preview source assessment — 2026-09-27
The [bounded source-readiness review](../reviews/SourceReadiness-0.1.md) completes
editorial traceability assessment for WP-0002 T02. The original extraction above is
preserved; external claims were not re-fetched. Implementation/recurrence and human
validation remain open in the named successor tasks; no maturity promotion.

66
research/reviews/M1-SeedReview.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
# M1 seed review — 0.1 packaging boundary
Reviewed 2026-09-27 by Codex, author-model. Candidate baseline `8cc7016`.
**M1 result: revise/defer; not passed.** The connected subset is suitable for a
qualified research reference preview, not canonical admission or proven usefulness.
Publication 0.1 and PatternSchema 0.1 are different version axes.
## Gate assessment
| M1 criterion | Outcome | Basis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reconciled metadata contract | pass | WP-0002 T01, vocabulary and worked contract fixtures; candidates are not full canonical-schema records |
| First source and local-first contrast | pass, scoped | [Source readiness](SourceReadiness-0.1.md); source identity and uncertainty explicit |
| 6–10 connected drafts | pass for editorial subset | CAND-0001–0008 cover local persistence/propagation/divergence and shared-record editing/recovery; selection is not a global catalog cap |
| Two completed validated walkthroughs | revise | VC-01/02 include decisions, baselines, changed constraints and failure traces, but remain synthetic with unverified implementation assumptions |
| Evidence/counterexamples | pass for traceability; defer for recurrence | Documentation, pinned code and bounded runtime mechanisms are separate evidence kinds; full-contract independence unassessed |
| Independent human validation and usefulness | defer | Frozen pilot 18/24 in each condition after model-review adjudication; no naming benefit, equivalence or decision-time result established |
| Quality and recovery guarantees | revise | Requirements for retention, keyboard recovery, receipt windows and crash boundaries are stated; complete validation absent |
## Core editorial inspection
All eight records were read in full. Each has context, competing forces, a proposed
solution, consequences, alternatives, evidence and explicit gaps. “Pass” below means
usable as qualified hypothesis prose; it does not mean empirical correctness or
compliance with every canonical template field. [Reference manifest](../../reference/0.1/manifest.json)
selects identities; candidate prose remains the contract source.
| Candidate | Context and solution / resulting decision | Trade-off and alternative checked | Evidence limit / preview disposition |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CAND-0001 Conflict Copy | Preserve detected divergent content separately; resolution remains pending | Recoverability versus clutter/review; immediate review or domain-aware merge instead | Joplin and optional Obsidian mechanisms, not atomic preservation proof; pass as hypothesis |
| CAND-0002 Local Commit Boundary | Acknowledge a revision and pending intent after a recoverable local commit | Offline recovery versus transaction/feedback cost; memory-only or server-required saving cannot satisfy the fixed brief | Storage motivation, no verified crash/flush contract; pass as hypothesis |
| CAND-0003 Pending Synchronization | Retain queued work and distinguish sent from acknowledged | Offline usability versus freshness/retry complexity; online-only writes are a different requirement | Joplin progress metadata, not proposed retry/supersession proof; pass as hypothesis |
| CAND-0004 Explicit Reconciliation | Compare preserved alternatives and commit a new decision | Information completeness versus interruption; justified automatic merge is an alternative | Manual comparison evidence, not provenance/atomicity/AT validation; pass, retain separately provisionally |
| CAND-0005 Local Draft State | Keep base, editable proposal and refreshed observation distinct | Recovery versus state complexity/privacy; direct binding only when no unfinished intent | Partial Zulip/Element and authored reload mechanisms, not whole lifecycle; pass as hypothesis |
| CAND-0006 Version-Checked Mutation | Check the proposal's expected version at the authority | Consistency versus repeated review; unconditional/commutative operations need their own contract | Conditional API mechanism, not complete frontend implementation; pass as hypothesis |
| CAND-0007 Mutation Outcome Tracking | Track operation-specific evidence rather than infer rejection from transport failure | Recoverability versus retention/backend cost; lookup or reconciliation when replay cannot be justified | Bounded API/SDK/source mechanisms, not universal deduplication; pass as hypothesis |
| CAND-0008 Invalidate and Reproject | Refresh affected observations after acceptance without losing drafts | Freshness versus network/invalidation work; complete authoritative response or subscription may avoid refetch | Framework documentation, no full frontend recurrence; pass as hypothesis |
The preview links provisional relations with conditions and rationales, not mandatory
architecture dependencies. A request for globally exclusive offline approval cannot
be satisfied by combining these names. Backup, authorization and crash guarantees
remain explicit implementation obligations.
## Retain / merge / defer
[Preview ontology review](PreviewOntology-0.1.md) retains Conflict Copy and Explicit
Reconciliation as distinct retrieval decisions, conditionally connected. Their ultimate
split/merge remains testable. Mutation Outcome Tracking is retained as a shared review
model/hypothesis; no new claim of standalone recurrence. The nine extension candidates
remain available with their existing limitations and are not needed for core closure.
No candidate promotion, ID rename or evidence-profile upgrade occurs.
## Residual owners
- WP-0002 T03: independent human review, usefulness and fresh-scenario replication;
this task stays progress and the M1 gate stays open.
- WP-0003 T04: storage atomicity, receiver replay/ancestry and recovery validation
transferred from the completed source-review deliverable.
- WP-0003 T01/T02/T03: independent application contrasts, quality/AT and wider cases,
and later ontology/M2 judgment.
- WP-0004 T01/T02/T03: canonical graph, held-out retrieval and empirical applicability
retain their prerequisites. Preview candidate export is not M3 completion.
These are explicit work records, not a claim that the remaining work was completed
by packaging the reference. The frozen pilot and original investigation receipts are
unchanged. Review this gate again when those tasks deliver new evidence.

38
research/reviews/PreviewOntology-0.1.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
# Ontology review for the 0.1 reference subset
2026-09-27, Codex author-model editorial review. Owner WP-0003 T03.
**Bounded result: retain with qualifications. M2 remains open.** No general proof
of minimal responsibilities, independent dimensions or complete pattern recurrence.
## Conflict Copy versus Explicit Reconciliation
Retain two research identities for preview retrieval:
- Conflict Copy answers “how do we keep detected competing content available while
continuing work?” Its result is preserved divergence, not resolved meaning.
- Explicit Reconciliation answers “how do we decide intended content and record the
decision?” It can use a version store without making a separate conflict file.
Preservation may precede manual review, but may also be followed by a justified
automatic merge or a deferred decision. Manual comparison can receive alternatives
from a revision store. Therefore neither unconditional requires edge is justified.
Export one conditional creates-context-for edge from CAND-0001 to CAND-0004 and
state the conditions. This is conceptual reasoning, not an observed independent
implementation of both complete contracts. Test whether readers can select one
without being forced into the other; merge later if that distinction proves unhelpful.
## Other decisions
| Question | Preview disposition | Limit |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Pending Synchronization versus Mutation Outcome Tracking | Retain both: local work may already be accepted while remote propagation is pending; remote write acceptance may instead be unknown | Shared operation-state model may motivate later refactoring; no full recurrence claim |
| Version precondition versus operation identity | Distinct obligations: stale-base rejection versus recovery of a particular attempt | One does not establish the other; receiver semantics must be checked |
| Local draft versus locally accepted record | Retain separate; editable intent need not be durable or locally authoritative | Add persistence only under explicit policy/storage requirements |
| Authority, projection and delivery | Apply the [six-question aid](AuthorityProjectionComparison.md); retain the six seeds without new drafts | Separate decisions with compatibility constraints, not universally independent axes |
| Families versus responsibilities | Keep separate classification fields; quality is a family, reconciliation a responsibility | Provisional direct-mechanism assignments and selected forces are not exhaustive ontology proof |
| Relations and prerequisites | Export only scoped proposals with rationale; no inverse, symmetric or transitive inference | Proposed links are not canonical graph edges; contextual conditions are not pattern IDs |
| Scale coverage | Preserve current labels and gaps, including L0/L7 | No automatic relabeling to fill empty cells |
No M2-CoverageReview pass is claimed: VC-04/05 are absent and VC-03/06 remain provisional.
This closes the preview's bounded ontology inspection, not WP-0003 T03. Independent
retrieval/usefulness and broader case outcomes may overturn these provisional choices.

27
research/reviews/SourceReadiness-0.1.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
# Source readiness for the 0.1 research preview
Reviewed 2026-09-27 by Codex, author-model editorial review. Inputs: source reviews
and receipts committed through `8cc7016`; no new external verification. Owner:
WP-0002 T02. Review scope is traceability and qualified interpretation, not full
implementation validation or currency of living documentation.
| Criterion | Disposition | Evidence / remaining boundary |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Identifiable first source and claim locators | pass | [Carniato review](../cases/CarniatoGrandUnifyingArchitecture.md), SRC-0001/C01–C03; edition/date uncertainty remains explicit |
| Independently sourced local-first contrast | pass | [Local-first review](../cases/LocalFirstAuthority.md), SRC-0002/C01–C03; primary local record is distinct from globally valid transaction |
| Source claims versus our interpretations | pass | Both claim tables separate these; [AuthorityPilot](AuthorityPilot.md) records conditional authority and acknowledgement decisions |
| Extensions with traceable limits and counterexamples | pass | [E01–E12](LocalFirstEvidenceExpansion.md), [T01–T05](TransactionalEvidenceExpansion.md), [R01–R06](FrontendRecoveryImplementations.md); living docs and partial source uses are qualified |
| Generated output screened and failures retained | pass | Failed/truncated runs and invalid edges remain in receipts/reviews; extracted model text is not automatically admitted |
| Current public maturity claims | pass for preview scope | README and release entry describe seventeen hypotheses, partial evidence and unproved usefulness |
| Actual storage atomicity, receiver semantics and full-contract independent uses | defer | These exceed the original two-source review deliverable; explicit residual ownership below |
| Independent human/AT usefulness | defer | WP-0002 T03 / WP-0003 T02 retain these gates; submitted model review does not meet them |
**Disposition:** the original WP-0002 T02 source-review deliverable is complete at
this bounded documentary level. Earlier notes accumulated implementation and fault
validation obligations; completion here does not erase them. Transfer those obligations
to WP-0003 T04 (origin WP-0002 T02), alongside existing T01 source comparison work.
WP-0002 itself stays active and M1 remains revise/defer under T03.
The dated source reviews retain their original extracted status as historical records;
their appended editorial-assessment links identify this later disposition without
rewriting the original source collection or claiming revalidation of external content.