Assess actual scope and plan the reference consumption bridge

Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6.1-sol
Assistant-Session: 01a1045b-933d-7aa1-b2db-104557487a79
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-10-04 08:51:57 +02:00
parent 07f1f37374
commit d413f5f8d0
3 changed files with 252 additions and 103 deletions

181
SCOPE.md
View file

@ -1,125 +1,100 @@
# SCOPE
Reviewed: 2026-10-04 · Scope: ongoing research and a versioned knowledge base.
Reviewed: 2026-10-04 · Capability audit at `07f1f37`.
## Purpose and deliverable
## What this repository delivers
Develop a framework-independent frontend architecture pattern language for human
and agent reference, following [INTENT.md](INTENT.md). Its intended practical
outcome is an explainable path from a frontend problem and its forces to compatible
patterns and implementation options.
This is a versioned Markdown research knowledge base and a qualified frontend
architecture reference. Its purpose follows [INTENT.md](INTENT.md): help a reader
move from a problem and its forces to explainable pattern choices and implementation
questions. That outcome has been demonstrated through authored examples, but improved
real-world decisions and complete generativity have not been established.
The deliverable is a versioned Markdown knowledge base with structured metadata,
traceable evidence and transparent revision history. The language evolves through
bounded investigations and review gates; it has no final completion date. Completing
an experiment or milestone does not establish a mature language.
The product is reference material and research tooling. There is no maintained
frontend application, framework, online recommendation service or production runtime.
Research fixtures exercise bounded mechanisms; they are not implementation recipes.
## In scope
## Capabilities available now
- `canon/`: responsibilities, forces, scales, relations and the metadata contract,
including testing whether the proposed vocabulary explains contrasting cases.
- `research/`: identifiable sources, claim-level interpretations, candidate patterns,
counterexamples, pinned implementation studies and bounded executable experiments.
- `patterns/`: evidence-qualified canonical records when admission is justified;
research candidates remain separately identified until then.
- `sequences/` and `architectures/`: decision ordering, compatible configurations,
alternatives and resulting contexts, exercised through contrasting walkthroughs.
- `technologies/`: descriptive mappings from patterns to implementation approaches,
including their constraints and limits.
- `templates/`, `scripts/` and the infospace-bench adapter: authoring, metadata checks
and reproducible research evaluation. Live model execution uses llm-connect.
- `research/evolution/` and `history/`: evidence profiles, immutable snapshots,
prospective questions and effort, supersession, learning outcomes and dated
assessments. Track applicability, trustworthiness, usefulness, coherence,
maintainability and learning efficiency separately.
| Surface | What a reader or agent can do | Evidence and limit |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Human entry and two core sequences | Follow shared-record editing or offline-work decisions, alternatives, failure traces and implementation questions | [START.md](START.md), [transactional](sequences/TransactionalApplication.md), [offline](sequences/LocalFirstApplication.md); synthetic VC-01/02 guidance |
| Frozen 0.1 candidate reference | Read 17 pinned draft hypotheses (8 core, 9 extensions), 9 conditional proposed relations, classifications and evidence gaps | [Release registry](reference/releases.json), [index](reference/0.1/index.json); not an admitted canonical graph |
| Current research corpus | Inspect 18 developed candidate hypotheses with evidence profiles and retained source/runtime reviews | [Evolution report](research/evolution/EvolutionReport.md); the additional live candidate is outside frozen 0.1, no canonical admissions |
| Implementation mappings | Locate scoped mechanisms for transactional and offline recovery | [TransactionalRecovery](technologies/TransactionalRecovery.md), [OfflineRecovery](technologies/OfflineRecovery.md); no product supplies a certified complete configuration |
| Metadata and publication checks | Validate contract examples, candidate inventory/hashes, classification, evidence locators and immutable release artifacts | `make schema-test evolution-check classification-check reference-check`; checks establish structural traceability, not source truth |
| Research bench | Plan and execute bounded source investigations, retain failures, screen structure and explicitly replay compatible cached runs | [Bench adapter](research/bench/README.md); paid inference uses llm-connect and its task authorization/budget, not automatic invocation |
| Learning visibility | Read a selected retrospective ledger, prospective protocols, measured/unknown effort, immutable snapshots and comparison readiness | [ComparisonWindows.json](research/evolution/ComparisonWindows.json); 8 prospective cycles in 7 declared groups, none reaches the 3-cycle review trigger |
| Deterministic scheduled reporting | Observe retained natural daily, weekly and October 1 monthly reports from activity-core | [Receipt reconciliation](docs/evidence/2026-10-04-loop-reconciliation.json); zero enrolled consumers, dated owner health snapshot, no admitted pattern-editing executor |
These areas include intended capabilities; directory presence is not evidence that
the corresponding capability is implemented or validated.
The frozen preview and live research are separate version surfaces. Published candidate
prose is read at its corpus revision; release documents and evidence locators are read
at the packaging revision. Legitimate new research does not rewrite the old preview.
## Current capabilities and limits
## Evidence limits and unavailable capabilities
As of 2026-09-28, eighteen developed research candidates remain draft hypotheses;
none is canonically admitted. Sources and claim-level reviews, metadata contract
checks, an infospace-bench adapter and bounded runtime research fixtures exist.
Four walkthroughs are synthetic drafts or provisional studies, not validated
architecture recipes. Six further validation cases remain planned.
The four walkthroughs (VC-01/02/03/06) are synthetic drafts or provisional studies;
six validation cases are planned. The named files under `architectures/` are research
stubs, not developed or validated architecture decompositions. General, content and
collaborative sequences contain provisional scaffolding beyond the two developed core
paths. Vocabulary and catalog names do not constitute additional implemented patterns.
The frozen development pilot scored 18/24 in each presentation condition after
submitted model-review adjudication. It establishes neither a naming benefit nor
equivalence; independent human validation and decision-time measurement remain open.
The consumed development pilot scored 18/24 in each presentation condition after
model-review adjudication. It establishes neither a naming benefit nor equivalence.
Independent human scores, fresh-scenario replication and decision-time evidence remain
missing. M1/M2 remain revise/defer, and canonical admission is open. Full canonical graph
export, held-out retrieval evaluation and real-repository applicability studies retain
their recorded prerequisites. Eight disclosed preview navigation cases are development
checks; they are not held-out retrieval results.
Evolution profiles, a baseline, learning ledger, snapshots and a generated report
are implemented. Eight prospective cycles (seven effort-accounted) belong to seven different
comparison groups: there is no comparable window for a diminishing-returns claim.
Evidence types, implementation families and review provenance remain distinct.
Static source mechanisms and authored runtime fixtures do not establish complete
pattern recurrence, production fitness or independent human confirmation.
Full-contract recurrence, production fitness, accessibility conformance, native crash
and off-device recovery guarantees are not established by the scoped source studies or
authored runtime fixtures. Seven prospective cycles have positive recorded research
time; LEARN-0017's time is unknown. A matching group label is not proof of comparability,
and there is no basis for a diminishing-returns or plateau claim.
Canonical admission, M1/M2 acceptance, demonstrated generativity, full graph export,
held-out retrieval evaluation remain open. Scoped mechanism mappings are available
in the 0.1 preview; full implementation contracts remain unverified.
There is research runtime code, but no maintained frontend application or framework
is offered as the product. See the [evolution report](research/evolution/EvolutionReport.md)
for current counts and evidence limits; [REVIEW.md](REVIEW.md) preserves the initial
2026-09-23 review and is not a current capability inventory.
The capability entry and hosted-publication preparation exist, but hosted federation
registration and eligible consumer integration lack acceptance evidence. The consumer
roster is empty; eligible-task coverage and usefulness are unknown. Deterministic
collection/reporting is implemented by activity-core, while producer closeout integration,
real use plus linked outcomes, delayed-outcome refresh, admitted bounded investigation,
authenticated publication and automatic rollback remain incomplete. Reporting schedules
are not proof of a closed autonomous improvement loop.
## Research boundaries and exclusions
## Boundaries
- Do not build or operate a general frontend application, framework, router or
release platform as the deliverable. Fixtures exist to investigate claims.
- Do not rank frameworks, prescribe a universal architecture or turn the language
into a component cookbook or collection of tool-specific idioms.
- Do not treat candidate counts, source counts, passing assertions or model agreement
as maturity, independent recurrence or proof of usefulness.
- Do not infer accessibility conformance, production guarantees or upstream defects
from bounded DOM experiments or partial source inspection.
- Do not combine viability dimensions into a maturity percentage, infer historical
effort from commits, or pool incomparable studies to claim learning saturation.
Research covers framework-independent authority, addressability, projection, mutation,
recovery, interaction, composition and delivery decisions. Additional coverage must
come from useful questions, contrasting contexts and traceable evidence. Authoring,
validation and qualified reference improvements are in scope; canonical admission and
stronger evidence claims require the existing reviews.
## Work ownership and review boundaries
Do not turn the deliverable into a framework ranking, component cookbook, general
frontend runtime or universal architecture prescription. Do not infer maturity from
catalog size, fixtures, model agreement or automation definitions. Do not fabricate
human ratings, historical effort, consumer use, complete contract recurrence or
unsupported guarantees. Policy/access/budget changes in the operating loop remain
monthly human decisions; qualified reference work can continue within existing scope.
[WP-0002](workplans/FEP-WP-0002-seed-language-validation.md) delivered seed evidence and
the connected corpus (finished; M1 revise/defer). [WP-0009](workplans/FEP-WP-0009-m1-independent-validation.md)
owns independent M1 validation. [WP-0003](workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md)
owns contrasting streams, broader walkthroughs, ontology decisions and M2.
[WP-0004](workplans/FEP-WP-0004-reference-surface.md) is blocked follow-up for graph,
held-out retrieval and real-repository applicability, subject to its recorded gates.
[WP-0006](workplans/FEP-WP-0006-language-evolution.md) owns ongoing learning visibility,
review dates and comparable-cycle measurement. Actionable work stays in workplans;
this file describes boundaries, not a second backlog.
## Work and assessment ownership
[WP-0007](workplans/FEP-WP-0007-language-v01-preview.md) packages a finite 0.1 research
preview: curated candidate reference paths, two core sequences, scoped mappings and
a candidate export. This is a bounded research preview, not a replacement for M1/M2/M3.
[WP-0009](workplans/FEP-WP-0009-m1-independent-validation.md) owns the independent M1
validation residual of finished WP-0002. [WP-0003](workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md)
owns architectural contrasts, broader walkthroughs and M2; [WP-0004](workplans/FEP-WP-0004-reference-surface.md)
owns gated canonical export, held-out retrieval and real-repository evaluation.
[WP-0006](workplans/FEP-WP-0006-language-evolution.md) owns comparable learning evidence;
[WP-0008](workplans/FEP-WP-0008-use-driven-improvement.md) owns discovery, eligible
consumer integration/outcomes and end-to-end autonomous improvement. Workplan files
are authoritative; this document is a capability inventory, not a duplicate backlog.
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.
## Ecosystem reuse and operational learning
The user-directed [WP-0008](workplans/FEP-WP-0008-use-driven-improvement.md) connects
qualified reference use to evidence-bearing consumer receipts and bounded autonomous
improvement. It owns discovery, instrumentation and execution integration; monthly
human review owns operating-policy decisions. The capability entry is prepared;
automatic collection and three activity-core reporting schedules passed scheduled
smoke checks; the first natural daily run failed after a worker image change removed
the domain resolver. The approved grant-preserving repair is deployed and all three
scheduled sink smokes pass. Retained natural daily and weekly runs and the October 1
monthly report are now verified against State Hub receipts; that report covers
September and carries a dated owner health snapshot. See the
[reconciliation evidence](docs/evidence/2026-10-04-loop-reconciliation.json).
Hosted consumer integration and admitted pattern-editing execution remain blocked;
there are no enrolled consumers yet.
This operational loop can improve draft guidance without claiming M1/M2/M3 or
independent-human validation. See the [operating design](docs/ReuseAndImprovementLoop.md).
The [current scope–intent assessment](history/2026-10-04T084941+0200-scope-vs-intent.md)
prioritizes consumer decision/outcome evidence, independent validation and qualified
reference consumption over catalog expansion. [WP-0010](workplans/FEP-WP-0010-reference-consumption.md)
implements the bounded local consumption bridge; it does not replace empirical owners.
The [September 27 assessment](history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md) remains
historical evidence of the earlier judgment.
## Registration
- Repository: `frontend-patterns`
- Category: `research`
- Domain / topic: `infotech / canon`
- Workplan prefix: `FEP-WP`
The topic groups this research with semantic coordination work; it does not imply
that the proposed language is an adopted fleet standard.
Repository `frontend-patterns` · category `research` · domain/topic `infotech / canon`
· workplan prefix `FEP-WP`. Registration does not imply an adopted fleet standard.

View file

@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
# Scope against intent — 2026-10-04 08:49:41 Europe/Berlin
Assessor: Codex, author-model; no independent human review. Audited repository
revision `07f1f373744986a22bc4f18710de94534f40343d`, local source records, frozen
0.1 pins and the October 4 natural-report reconciliation. This assessment does not
re-probe production, execute paid inference or supply new empirical use evidence.
The original [September 27 assessment](2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md)
is preserved. [SCOPE.md](../SCOPE.md) is the refreshed capability inventory.
## Judgment
The repo now supplies a usable, evidence-qualified research reference for two
frontend problem classes, with unusually explicit recovery limits and immutable
publication. It still falls short of INTENT's success condition: it has not shown
that an independent practitioner can derive and apply a useful compatible
configuration to real work, or that using the language improves the decision.
The central gap is observed consumer value and independent applicability evidence,
not a shortage of candidate names or more research administration.
## Intent-to-capability trace
| INTENT property/question | Current evidence | Gap |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Problem → forces → choices → implementation | START, two core sequences, two scoped mappings, VC-01/02 authored decision traces | No external task/outcome chain or measured decision benefit |
| Contextual and relational choices | Eight connected core hypotheses, 9 proposed conditional relations in the pinned 0.1 index; constraints and abstentions stated | No general compatibility solver, transitive guarantee or validated architecture generation |
| Trustworthy evidence and known uses | Source locators, pinned static-code reviews, bounded runtime receipts, explicit provenance and gaps | Full-contract independent recurrence unassessed; independent human and fresh-scenario evidence absent |
| Agent-readable reference | Frozen 17-record JSON export, IDs, classification, relation conditions and immutable version registry | No executable structured lookup/citation or consumer-side receipt producer at audit start; held-out retrieval absent |
| Multi-scale architecture decomposition | Families/scales and provisional classification; four synthetic/provisional walkthroughs | Six named architecture stubs and six planned validation cases do not establish broad applicability |
| Evolvability | Eighteen live candidates, ledger, snapshots and generated readiness audit | Eight prospective cycles across seven groups; largest two with one unknown effort, no returns-review window |
| Practical continuous improvement | Seven verified natural reporting receipts, October monthly packet | Empty consumer roster; no admitted budget-enforced editor or authenticated automatic publication/rollback |
The live corpus has 18 candidates; frozen 0.1 has 17. Publication, current research,
canonical maturity and runtime reporting are distinct surfaces. Keeping them separate
is a capability, but requires consumer tooling that carries exact pins.
## Most relevant gaps, in priority order
1. **A real decision and inspectable outcome.** Select an actual eligible open frontend
task, record what the language changed or failed to answer, and follow its evidence.
Without an instrumented denominator and outcomes, usefulness stays unknown.
WP-0008 T01/T02 owns this. A fixture, this repo's audit or a finished task is not a
substitute. Implementing a small local lookup/receipt bridge removes preparation
friction now; eligible selection, common-template rollout and enrollment remain
their existing acceptance acts.
2. **Independent validation of the connected core.** WP-0009 owns human scoring,
fresh atomic-criterion replication and M1 review. Model scores cannot fill the
human sheet. Preparation can proceed without inference; paid execution retains
its explicit call-budget authorization. No admission or milestone pass follows
from the proposed local tool.
3. **Reliable constrained reference consumption and abstention.** At the audit start,
consumers must manually traverse JSON and assemble version/digest pins. Add
deterministic filtering by explicit candidate, force and responsibility, retain
force costs/conditional relations and emit commit-specific locators. Missing
context and no match must not become an inferred architecture. This is qualified
development tooling, not WP-0004's gated held-out evaluation.
4. **Contrasting coverage and full-contract implementation evidence.** WP-0003/0004
owns broader architecture cases, independent application contrasts and retrieval.
General sequence scaffolding and architecture stubs must stay qualified. Expand
only when actual use or a necessary validation question warrants it; preserve
M1/M2 gates and the paused navigation fixture.
5. **Unattended execution and comparable learning.** WP-0008 and its external owners
retain executor budgets, real improvements and automatic release/rollback;
WP-0006 retains useful comparable windows. Natural reports prove observation,
not a closed improvement loop or a learning trend. These dependencies are not
solved by adding another schedule, group label or fabricated cycle.
## Implementation decision and workplan
Create [FEP-WP-0010](../workplans/FEP-WP-0010-reference-consumption.md) for the finite
local bridge: accurate scope/assessment, verified pinned lookup/citation, immutable
consumer receipt preparation and disclosed end-to-end regression fixtures. Use the
existing release validator and activity-core event contract. The producer does not
assert verified origin or a helpful outcome; only the collector verifies source pins.
No service, paid provider, credential lane, fleet mandate or maturity promotion is needed.
Keep the empirical gaps in existing live records WP-0008, WP-0009, WP-0003/0004 and
WP-0006. Add explicit handoff references before finishing WP-0010; do not replace
those gates with new duplicate tasks or hide residuals solely in this assessment.
Acceptance is a working local consume → cite → prepare-receipt path with stable
version/corpus/packaging pins and tested abstention, tampering and immutability.
This establishes tool behavior only. Actual integration, consumer benefit, independent
validation and production autonomy remain separate evidence requirements.
## Verification and completion record
To be filled from implementation receipts before closeout. The capability inventory
must describe the delivered tool behavior and retain all empirical limitations.

View file

@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
---
id: FEP-WP-0010
type: workplan
title: "Close local reference-consumption gaps"
domain: infotech
repo: frontend-patterns
status: ready
owner: codex
topic_slug: canon
created: "2026-10-04"
updated: "2026-10-04"
---
# Close local reference-consumption gaps
Requested in the October 4 scope-versus-intent review. Reviewed against `07f1f37`,
the immutable 0.1 validator/export and activity-core's schema-v1 consumer event
contract. [Assessment](../history/2026-10-04T084941+0200-scope-vs-intent.md) ranks the
remaining gaps. This plan implements a finite local consumption bridge; it does not
claim real usefulness, independent validation, canonical export or autonomous operation.
## Reconcile actual capabilities and ranked gaps
```task
id: FEP-WP-0010-T01
status: done
priority: high
```
Update SCOPE.md from actual artifacts and record a timestamped assessment against
INTENT. Distinguish 18 live hypotheses from the frozen 17-record preview, developed
core paths from stubs, reporting from improvement and development checks from
independent/held-out evidence. Name existing owners for the most relevant gaps.
## Implement verified pinned lookup and citation
```task
id: FEP-WP-0010-T02
status: todo
priority: high
```
Add a small stdlib CLI to filter the verified candidate preview by explicit IDs,
improving forces and responsibilities. Carry force costs, evidence limits and
conditional relations without inferring compatibility or applicability. Empty or
unknown constraints must clarify/abstain honestly. Provide commit-specific corpus
and packaging locators; never silently read moving candidate prose. Reuse the existing
release validation and fail on tampering or unavailable pins.
## Prepare immutable consumer closeout receipts
```task
id: FEP-WP-0010-T03
status: todo
priority: high
```
Accept an explicit consumer decision/provenance input and prepare a schema-v1 event
with verified release pins, considered/selected IDs, unchanged unknown outcomes and
exact file digest/index entry. Write new files exclusively; refuse overwrite and unsafe
source-relative paths. Validate inputs before writes. Real versus synthetic is explicit;
no consumer enrollment, fabricated real outcome, arbitrary feedback execution or
producer claim of verified collector origin. Match activity-core's existing event
contract instead of creating a second collection service.
## Verify the bridge and hand remaining gaps to live owners
```task
id: FEP-WP-0010-T04
status: todo
priority: high
```
Run disclosed synthetic lookup/citation/receipt cases, including unsupported/no-match,
missing context, unknown IDs, changed live research, tampered release, invalid provenance,
selection/action mismatch, delayed follow-up and duplicate writes. Verify generated
receipts with the actual activity-core validator and document exact owner revision.
Provide consumer commands in existing entry points. No model call or production
mutation is required. Run repository checks and record limitations.
Before finishing, link delivered bridge and residual acceptance to existing WP-0008
T01/T02 (real consumer/template/enrollment/outcomes), WP-0009 (human/fresh validation),
WP-0003/0004 (broader/gated applicability) and WP-0006 (comparable windows). Add live
record references there. This plan may finish its local deliverable while the empirical
owners remain open; do not claim those gaps closed or leave actionable residuals only
in prose/history.