tegwick
50c68575f1
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
81 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
81 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
# Open Questions
|
|
|
|
## Core ontology
|
|
|
|
- Is `Authority → Projection → Affordance` a better primary axis than traditional "state management" terminology?
|
|
- Should `Mutation` represent intent, transport, state transition, or be split?
|
|
- Is `Reconciliation` independent enough to be a first-class responsibility?
|
|
- Should `Communication Window` become a canonical dimension?
|
|
|
|
## Pattern language
|
|
|
|
- What qualifies as a pattern rather than a technique?
|
|
- How much implementation detail belongs in canonical patterns?
|
|
- How do we represent patterns that only make sense at one scale?
|
|
- How should pattern relations be validated?
|
|
|
|
## Agentic use
|
|
|
|
- Which metadata is necessary for useful pattern retrieval?
|
|
- Should the pattern graph be exported as JSON/YAML/RDF?
|
|
- Can force matching be made quantitative without creating false precision?
|
|
- Can architecture review be expressed as unresolved-force detection?
|
|
|
|
## Evidence
|
|
|
|
- What makes a frontend pattern "established"?
|
|
- Should known uses be manually curated or automatically mined?
|
|
- How should contradictory source claims be represented?
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Investigation ledger
|
|
|
|
All entries are open. Update status and evidence links as research proceeds;
|
|
retaining a hypothesis requires evidence just as rejecting one does.
|
|
|
|
| Question | Working hypothesis | Disconfirmation exercise | Owner workplan |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| Q01 Responsibility coverage | Nine responsibilities explain the seed cases | Record any important decision that cannot be mapped without distortion | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q02 Independence | Authority and projection can vary independently | Compare server-authoritative and local-first decisions; identify forced coupling | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q03 Pattern recurrence | Candidates describe reusable configurations | Seek independent uses and a counterexample; reject product-specific restatements | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q04 Generativity | Resulting contexts make later decisions easier | Compare walkthrough with a plain narrative and change one constraint | FEP-WP-0002 |
|
|
| Q05 Sequence ordering | The general sequence works with explicit branches | Test offline, collaboration and quality requirements that force earlier decisions | FEP-WP-0003 |
|
|
| Q06 Scale and boundaries | Composition and deployment are distinct dimensions | Analyze independently owned features that deploy together, and the reverse | FEP-WP-0003 |
|
|
| Q07 Retrieval | Metadata improves relevant, justified recommendations | Held-out prompts including ambiguity, incompatibility and abstention | FEP-WP-0004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
## First-cycle update — 2026-09-24
|
|
|
|
[AuthorityPilot](../reviews/AuthorityPilot.md) records an initial manual comparison.
|
|
Q02 remains open: distinguish authority scope and acknowledgement semantics before
|
|
claiming independent responsibility dimensions. Q03 remains open because source
|
|
statements do not alone establish recurrence. Q04 awaits VC-01/VC-02 walkthroughs.
|
|
The failed provider runs are execution failures, not negative evidence for the model.
|
|
|
|
## Transactional contrast — 2026-09-25
|
|
|
|
[VC-01/VC-02 assessment](../reviews/VC01-VC02-Comparison.md) sharpens Q02: local drafts do not imply local authority. Q03 lacks independent frontend uses; Q04 remains unknown despite two complete synthetic narratives. No question is closed by pattern count.
|
|
|
|
2026-09-25 follow-up: [pinned frontend code](../reviews/FrontendRecoveryImplementations.md) supports two partial draft-separation uses, but not full-pattern recurrence. [Review attempt](../reviews/RecoveryWalkthroughReview.md) yielded no adopted model fixes; editorial lifecycle corrections do not resolve Q04 usefulness.
|
|
|
|
## Q04 presentation pilot — 2026-09-26
|
|
|
|
[Matched pilot](../evaluations/language-pilot-01/README.md) completed six new briefs
|
|
under two equivalent-information conditions. Q04 remains open: small mixed descriptive
|
|
differences, same-author editorial scoring and pending human adjudication do not
|
|
establish usefulness. The six briefs are consumed pilot material, not future held-out
|
|
items. Next: independent ratings before changing guidance or replicating.
|
|
|
|
2026-09-26 submitted-review update: [adjudicated totals](../evaluations/language-pilot-01/submitted-review-01/adjudication.md)
|
|
are 18/24 for each condition after four corrections. No presentation benefit is
|
|
established; equal totals do not establish equivalence. Worksheet declares model
|
|
authorship and prior aggregate-result exposure. Q04 remains open; future rubrics
|
|
should split compound obligations before execution.
|
|
|
|
## Breadth update — 2026-09-26
|
|
|
|
[Six-candidate review](../reviews/PatternBreadthExpansion.md) extends Q03/Q05/Q06.
|
|
Q06 separates module interfaces, client activation, fault containment and independent
|
|
release contracts. Q05 asks when modal focus/lifecycle requirements must shape
|
|
composition. Q03 still lacks verified recurrence for these complete contracts;
|
|
Q04 still lacks demonstrated decision benefit. Synthetic probes do not close cases.
|