frontend-patterns/research/reviews/LLMConnectPilot.md

llm-connect authority pilot

Date: 2026-09-24. Reviewer: codex; initial editorial review, not independent validation.

Execution

Per user direction, live execution now calls the deployed llm-connect /execute service. No provider key was retrieved. A temporary Kubernetes port-forward exposed activity-core/llm-connect locally; no deployment was changed. Requested profile: custodian-triage-balanced; resolved provider/model: OpenRouter / Gemini 2.5 Flash. Credentials and routing remain service-owned. Client retries are disabled; internal service retry count and dollar cost are unknown.

Receipts under research/bench/infospaces/ record source/prompt/config digests, requested settings, actual model, usage and finish reason:

• carniato-authority-02: one response, length, 4,470 total tokens. Rejected.
• carniato-authority-03: four responses, all stop, 12,638 total tokens. Workflow completed.
• local-first-authority-02: one response, length, 12,489 total tokens. Rejected.

Total reported usage across these six service requests: 29,597 tokens, including failed attempts. These totals do not measure dollar cost. The -01 failed direct provider runs remain intact. No successful local-first generated artifact exists. Generated output remains unreviewed in the bench; this editorial disposition does not rewrite the original run or convert assisted critique into independent review.

Review of the completed Carniato draft

Artifacts: candidate, relations, assisted critique.

Disposition: revise candidate; reject proposed graph relations; admit nothing.

• Workspace P01 maps provisionally to the existing Immediate Feedback candidate. Its family and scale labels do not satisfy the repository vocabulary contract.
• The candidate's chat, social, checkbox and form examples have no independently located implementations. They are illustrative hypotheses, not known-use evidence. Its recurrence assertion is unsupported by this bounded source packet.
• The proposed requires edges target C01/C02 claim IDs as if they were candidate IDs. These are evidence references, not valid pattern relation targets.
• Server authority is contextual in this source. A mandatory server-authority prerequisite for immediate feedback is not established, and conflicts with the local-first comparison hypothesis in the earlier manual review.
• The assisted critique approved recurrence and both relation justifications. This is a concrete false-positive example for our admission process: automated self-review cannot supply missing evidence or validate graph identity.

The two narrowly sourced claims are useful starting points, but the larger dynamics, failure modes and examples extend beyond the excerpt and need separate evidence. No FEP identities, canonical pattern files or graph edges were added.

Follow-up owned by FEP-WP-0002-T02

Before another local-first run, select explicit research-appropriate execution settings and diagnose repeated truncation within a bounded call/token plan; simply raising the cap again is not justified by these results. Refine prompts to prohibit invented known uses, distinguish claims from pattern identities, and require unsupported recurrence to remain unknown. Verify those rules on this captured failure before the next live run. T03 still owns cross-source case walkthroughs.