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

Map classification coverage and scope authority projection research

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 01:49:50 +02:00
parent 9ac6f6925b
commit b2f50aa3f3
8 changed files with 674 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

62
research/plan/AuthorityProjectionComparison.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
# Next bounded comparison — authority placement and projection
Prepared: 2026-09-27 · WP-0003 T01 · Status: ready for prospective registration.
This brief selects the next breadth investigation; no source investigation or
empirical cycle has been executed by writing it.
## Why this question
The [classification inventory](../catalog/ClassificationCoverage.md) finds that
seven of the original sixteen seeds have developed drafts. None of Server Authority,
Local Authority, Replicated Authority, Server Projection, Client Projection or
Streaming Projection has a dedicated developed draft. Current authority-family
membership instead describes acceptance/precondition mechanisms. The language needs
to explain placement decisions as well as recovery after those decisions.
Do these six seed names describe reusable patterns, context choices, implementation
strategies or delivery mechanisms? Which independent decisions are conflated when
we pair server authority with server rendering, or local authority with client rendering?
## Bounded method
1. Register one prospective cycle before new evidence collection, with a new
comparison group for this documentary/conceptual protocol. Record effort and
source access limits; do not pool it with navigation runtime cycles.
2. Reuse existing Carniato/local-first and navigation/rendering reviews as prior
interpretations, not new independent evidence. Inspect at most six primary-source
documents across at least two independent source families. Pin versions or record
access dates and claim locators. Sources may corroborate only parts of a contract.
3. For each of the six seeds, describe the relevant authority scope, acceptance
boundary, replica/cache semantics, projection inputs, execution location and
delivery timing. Keep optimistic display distinct from accepted authority and
streaming delivery distinct from where projection is computed.
4. Construct a decision matrix for two synthetic briefs already represented by
VC-01 transactional administration and VC-02 offline field notes. Vary projection
placement while holding authority assumptions explicit. State incompatible or
unsupported combinations rather than invent implementations. These are conceptual
probes, not new validated walkthroughs or deployed known uses.
5. Record a disposition for each seed: develop a candidate, retain as a seed, treat
as context/strategy, merge, or reject—with evidence and unresolved questions.
Produce at most two new drafts, and only where context, competing forces,
consequences and alternatives justify distinct patterns. Zero is a valid result.
## Acceptance, limits and handoff
Deliver a claim table, the two decision traces and six seed dispositions. Identify
at least one conflation or counterexample, or explicitly report that none was located
in the bounded evidence. Review responsibility/force mappings against resulting
candidate changes, then regenerate coverage and update evolution profiles/ledger at
the normal review boundary. No automatic canonical promotion or gate closure.
Stop after six primary documents or 45 active research minutes, whichever occurs
first; allow up to 10 additional verification minutes. Register these limits with the
cycle before starting. Preserve unknowns instead of widening silently. Live inference,
if needed later, uses llm-connect; this brief requires no model calls or new runtime
fixture. It does not establish measured performance, production guarantees or human
usefulness.
WP-0003 T01 retains the bounded Zulip caller/transport/test follow-up as an unresolved
navigation applicability question. Broadening does not require declaring that question
resolved; preserve its limitations and keep the authored navigation fixture paused.
WP-0002 T03 retains independent seed/usefulness review. M1/M2 and WP-0004 prerequisites
remain unchanged. Classification is a research aid, not a demand to fill every cell.