tegwick
2df1d9482b
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
3.1 KiB
LEARN-0015 — Separate authority from projection and delivery
Status: preregistered before new source collection. Date: 2026-09-27 Europe/Berlin. Reviewer: Codex, author-model; no independent human validation. Stream: cross-stream (C/D). Comparison group: CD-authority-projection-documentary-v1.
Question and prior
Do Server/Local/Replicated Authority and Server/Client/Streaming Projection describe six reusable patterns, or a mixture of context choices and implementation strategies? Prior: authority is scoped to particular data/decisions, acknowledgement levels differ, and rendering placement need not determine authority. Dedicated drafts for all six are absent. We expect some seed labels need decomposition rather than automatic promotion. Classification inventories are editorial priors, not empirical evidence.
Registered method
Follow research/plan/AuthorityProjectionComparison.md: at most six primary-source documents, at least two independent source families, with versions/access dates and claim locators. Reuse existing local reviews as priors only. Candidate source targets: Firestore offline/transaction documentation for cached versus accepted writes, Automerge documentation for local replicas/merge, and SvelteKit/React documentation for server/client projection and streaming. Select at most six substantive documents; failed fetches and path discovery do not supply evidence. No broad source expansion.
For each seed describe authority scope, acceptance boundary, cache/replica meaning, projection inputs, execution location and delivery timing. Produce claim table, synthetic VC-01/VC-02 contrasting decision traces, and six retain/develop/context/ merge/reject dispositions. Seek counterexamples to server-rendered implies server accepted and locally rendered implies locally authoritative. Unsupported combinations remain unknown. At most two new drafts, only if distinct contracts merit them; zero is valid. No code execution/performance/accessibility/production claim.
Outcomes, effort and stop
One bounded question, one disposition: corroboration, revision or inconclusive (or merge/rejection if a seed decision warrants it). Record uncertainty and preserved hypotheses; no automatic M1/M2 or canonical admission. Existing Zulip follow-up remains open and authored navigation fixture paused. No inference planned; any later live model execution uses llm-connect.
Stop after six substantive documents or 45 active research minutes; allow 10 minutes of repository verification. Start a monotonic clock after preregistration commit, before new source collection. Active elapsed session minus timed check subprocesses includes retrieval, interpretation and recording. Exclude preregistration and final receipt refresh/commit/snapshot/sync administration after cutoff. Tokens/cost unknown.
Append ledger and evidence report at review boundary; update candidate profiles and classification only if contracts change or new candidates are warranted. Snapshot the resulting assessment even if candidate content is unchanged. Do not combine this new documentary protocol with earlier runtime cycles to claim a trend.