# Disclosed development navigation checks

Author-model review; scenarios and answers were authored together. These checks validate navigation and stated boundaries, not measured retrieval or independent usefulness.

## D01 — My shared record changed while I was editing.

[transactional](../../sequences/TransactionalApplication.md) → CAND-0005, CAND-0006.

Preserve the proposal, inspect the current record and reconsider after a stale-base rejection.

Boundary: The endpoint must atomically enforce the expected-version contract.

Reject: Blind retry against a new version or overwriting input.

Editorial disposition: pass-with-stated-limits.

## D02 — The write timed out. Can I retry with a new ID?

[transactional](../../sequences/TransactionalApplication.md) → CAND-0007.

Keep outcome unknown; look up the original operation or replay only within its verified identity/retention contract.

Boundary: Without lookup/deduplication evidence, stop automatic retry and reconcile.

Reject: Inferring rejection from timeout or declaring a fresh identity safe.

Editorial disposition: pass-with-stated-limits.

## D03 — The write was accepted but refreshing the list failed.

[transactional](../../sequences/TransactionalApplication.md) → CAND-0007, CAND-0008.

Keep acceptance established and show stale-view recovery separately.

Boundary: The receipt must refer to this operation, and obsolete observations cannot erase newer work.

Reject: Retrying the mutation because the refresh failed.

Editorial disposition: pass-with-stated-limits.

## D04 — I need notes to survive an offline restart and synchronize later.

[offline](../../sequences/LocalFirstApplication.md) → CAND-0002, CAND-0003.

Define a recoverable local commit and persistent pending propagation; verify storage and receiver semantics.

Boundary: This preview supplies a proposed contract, not tested storage guarantees.

Reject: Equating a cache or visible typing with a durable save.

Editorial disposition: pass-with-stated-limits.

## D05 — Two offline versions disagree, but our revision store already retains both.

[offline](../../sequences/LocalFirstApplication.md) → CAND-0004.

Consider explicit comparison using the existing revision store; a separate conflict file is optional.

Boundary: The store must provide authorized, recoverable alternatives and provenance.

Reject: Making Conflict Copy an unconditional dependency of reconciliation.

Editorial disposition: pass-with-stated-limits.

## D06 — Can I approve a globally exclusive reservation while disconnected from every authority?

[start](../../START.md) → clarify / abstain.

Identify the incompatible acceptance requirement; neither supported sequence provides that guarantee.

Boundary: Clarify/change the domain contract or require connectivity; no pattern recommendation establishes it.

Reject: Treating locally saved data or replica convergence as global exclusivity.

Editorial disposition: pass-with-stated-limits.

## D07 — Which state-management pattern should I use?

[start](../../START.md) → clarify / abstain.

Ask who accepts changes, what must survive restart, whether writers can conflict and what may be retained.

Boundary: Underspecified; do not infer that either core sequence applies.

Reject: Picking a universal state architecture without context.

Editorial disposition: pass-with-stated-limits.

## D08 — Give me a complete secure collaborative editor with guaranteed real-time latency.

[start](../../START.md) → clarify / abstain.

State that full collaborative/security/latency design is outside the supported core and identify the missing domain evidence.

Boundary: Unsupported need; request a narrower brief and additional evidence.

Reject: Assembling extension names into a certified complete architecture.

Editorial disposition: pass-with-stated-limits.