From ff0c1d4d3559dbeb5ee0b3323b4ebe66b24f9406 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 11:52:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Preregister pinned Zulip acceptance and projection study Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0e241-8285-7a63-8c0c-51c9cb824dc3 --- .../cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-acceptance.md | 48 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+) create mode 100644 research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-acceptance.md diff --git a/research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-acceptance.md b/research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-acceptance.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..38eaf96 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/evolution/cycles/2026-09-27-zulip-acceptance.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +# LEARN-0016 — Shared acceptance versus local editing in Zulip + +Status: preregistered before new source collection. Date: 2026-09-27. +Reviewer: Codex, author-model; no independent human validation. +Stream: cross-stream (C/D). Comparison group: CD-acceptance-projection-static-v1. + +## Question and prior + +Does the six-question authority/projection aid distinguish local editable message +content, remotely accepted shared content and the subsequent displayed representation +in a pinned application? Prior: these are separate boundaries; a locally updated view +need not establish remote acceptance. A contrary path that treats tentative local +content as shared accepted state, or makes rendering placement determine acceptance, +would qualify that aid. A coherent path without such contradiction is corroboration, +not proof of the full candidate contracts. + +Use Zulip revision `5b06fa3d34f28fa01f459fbf3ba053e3c0858e9c`: the existing source +family includes shared messages and local drafts, and lets this study connect client +editing with server validation and rendered updates. Prior navigation evidence is not +new independent support. Affected concepts: authority/projection seeds and possible +partial CAND-0005/0007/0008 support; do not automatically update those contracts. + +## Method and limits + +Inspect at most ten substantive primary source files at the pinned revision. Start +with message_edit.ts and server message-edit endpoint/action; follow only callers, +rendering/event application and tests needed to trace one content-edit acceptance +and projection path. Retain hashes, line locators and failed retrievals. Search and +path discovery do not supply substantive evidence. Stop expanding when the cap is +reached; unresolved concurrency, response-loss and event-order questions stay unknown. + +Answer the six questions from AuthorityProjectionComparison.md with source versus +interpretation distinguished. Seek local optimistic updates, validation failures, +server normalization and response/event ordering that challenge a naive linear +submit-then-display account. No app execution, upstream tests, credentials, new +runtime fixture, independent recurrence or production-defect claim. No new drafts +expected; any evidence change must preserve the published 0.1 baseline. + +Budget: 35 active research minutes plus 5 minutes for checks. After this registration +commit, start a monotonic clock. Active session time includes retrieval, reading and +recording; separately time verification subprocesses and subtract them. No parallel +research allocation. Exclude registration and final snapshot/sync administration. +If timing is lost record unknown; tokens/cost unknown. One question, one ledger +outcome: corroboration, revision or inconclusive, justified by the review. + +Close with a review, source manifest, ledger/effort record and evolution snapshot. +Record residuals under WP-0003 T01 (or T04 for recovery tests); preserve M1/M2/M3 and +human gates. This static protocol is not comparable to documentary or runtime cycles.