From f3ac569d8e007be465d43cd30797e99e95b1cb0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 00:50:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Preregister pinned Zulip navigation source contrast Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9 --- .../cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-navigation.md | 64 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) create mode 100644 research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-navigation.md diff --git a/research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-navigation.md b/research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-navigation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e71bea4 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-navigation.md @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +# LEARN-0014 — Independent navigation/search ownership in Zulip + +Status: preregistered before source investigation. 2026-09-27 Europe/Berlin. +Codex author-model review; stream B; new group B-independent-navigation-source-v1. +Static evidence tier, not comparable to authored runtime cycles. Affected candidates: +CAND-0009 URL-addressable State, CAND-0010 Progressive Enhancement and, only if a +located contrasting mechanism warrants it, CAND-0016 Focus Return. + +## Bounded question and prior + +Where does an independently developed frontend accept, supersede or report asynchronous +navigation/search results, and how does that relate to selection and focus ownership? +Prior authored htmx work motivated guarding obsolete content/URL/title/feedback effects +separately from focus movement. A navigation generation is one implementation, not a +required universal mechanism. Zulip may use list identity, query identity, cancellation, +cache reuse, conditional rendering or different task semantics instead. Look for +counterexamples and limits rather than force every mechanism into our terminology. + +Pin Zulip repository revision 5b06fa3d34f28fa01f459fbf3ba053e3c0858e9c, already identified +in the earlier recovery-source manifest. Reuse that reproducible revision deliberately; +no claim that it is latest. Previously reviewed compose/draft/send code is not evidence +for this question. Record raw-file SHA256, immutable URLs and line ranges for new reads. +Independent implementation provenance does not imply independent review of our analysis. + +## Method and acceptance criteria + +Read at most twelve substantive frontend source/test files at this revision, starting +with navigation/hash, search/narrowing and asynchronous message-loading paths. Tree/API +metadata and path discovery are not source claims. Follow callers/callees only far +enough to locate ownership decisions; mark incomplete paths unknown. If twelve files +are insufficient, close with scoped evidence/gaps rather than silently widen the study. + +For each finding separate observed code, interpretation and untested behavior. Locate: + +1. Route/query selection and reconstruction entry points. +2. Captured request identity and response applicability, including obsolete success. +3. Error/feedback applicability, if visible in the bounded slice. +4. Selection/focus/scroll continuation and how it differs from modal focus return. +5. At least one limiting or contrasting case (for example useful off-screen results, + effects outside the guarded scope, or different ownership timing). + +Produce a traceable claim table and a source manifest with function/line locators. +Do not infer a whole-app guarantee from one predicate or count different files as +independent applications. Full-contract recurrence remains unassessed without review. +Source tests, if inspected, are documentary code evidence unless actually run. +No application build, browser execution, vendor modifications, external messages, +credentials or model inference planned. Any future live inference uses llm-connect. + +## Outcomes, effort and stop + +Disposition may be corroboration, revision or inconclusive; one bounded question counts +once. A useful contrast can narrow the proposed rule rather than promote a candidate. +Do not label an application progressive enhancement merely because it navigates via URLs. +A fragment/hash route can have a client reconstruction contract without a no-script one. +Keep that distinction explicit if encountered. + +Budget: 40 active agent-research minutes plus 10 check-execution minutes before scope +review. Monotonic single-agent elapsed session minus timed verification subprocesses; +source retrieval/reading is active research overhead. No overlapping work. Record gaps +and unknown token/cost telemetry; exclude final receipt refresh/commit/snapshot/sync +administration. Commit this plan before reading new source paths. Append ledger, +update scoped profiles/report, snapshot after candidate changes are committed, and +sync WP-0003 T01/WP-0006 T03. No automatic reopening of the paused local fixture, +M1/M2 closure, human validation or learning-rate trend claim.