tegwick
2ec23bb22c
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
66 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
66 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
# Authority pilot — first investigation
|
|
|
|
Date: 2026-09-24. Reviewer: codex, manual self-review.
|
|
Scope: prepared passages plus the explicitly located original sections in the two
|
|
source reviews. This is an initial investigation, not the M1 acceptance review.
|
|
|
|
## Initial direct-provider execution record
|
|
|
|
Both bench workspaces attempted their claims stage with `google/gemini-2.5-flash`.
|
|
Each stopped after one adapter call; no generated claims, candidates, relations or
|
|
critiques were produced. The separate OpenRouter credential probe returned HTTP 401.
|
|
The original failure receipts record the exception type only, so that probe is
|
|
separate diagnostic evidence rather than a retroactively fabricated provider receipt.
|
|
|
|
The existing credential route inspected was for activity-core's llm-connect workload,
|
|
not generic workstation clients. No production key was retrieved or rotated. No
|
|
fallback model or hidden retries were used. Completed usage/cost metadata is absent;
|
|
we do not claim a measured zero charge. Eight planned calls did not take place.
|
|
|
|
The adapter now records model, structured error code and HTTP status where available
|
|
without persisting raw provider error details. Tests exercise the 401 path using a
|
|
synthetic secret sentinel. Existing failure receipts are preserved unchanged.
|
|
|
|
## Reviewed research result
|
|
|
|
Read [Carniato review](../cases/CarniatoGrandUnifyingArchitecture.md) and
|
|
[local-first review](../cases/LocalFirstAuthority.md) for the source claims.
|
|
The following are our proposed modeling decisions, not conclusions attributed to
|
|
both authors or proof that any pattern is established:
|
|
|
|
1. **Scope authority to particular data and decisions.** One application's draft,
|
|
published record and shared reservation can have different authority rules.
|
|
2. **Separate acknowledgement levels.** Interaction feedback, durable local save,
|
|
and globally accepted mutation should not be interchangeable states.
|
|
3. **Qualify relations.** Server Authority and Local Authority are alternatives only
|
|
for the same authority scope. They may coexist in one application. Immediate
|
|
Feedback does not require Server Authority.
|
|
4. **Make recovery explicit.** A projection or optimistic view must explain which
|
|
durable state reconstructs it and what happens after interruption or rejection.
|
|
|
|
These proposals need source expansion and scenario testing. Q02 has a useful
|
|
counterexample to server placement as a universal rule; independent variation of
|
|
all responsibilities remains unproven. Q03 recurrence and Q04 generativity are open.
|
|
|
|
## Candidate dispositions
|
|
|
|
| Workspace/candidate origin | Repository candidate | Outcome |
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
|
| SRC-0001 C01, manually extracted | Server Authority | Retain candidate; qualify data scope |
|
|
| SRC-0001 C02, manually extracted | Immediate Feedback | Retain candidate; do not attach mandatory server dependency |
|
|
| SRC-0002 C01, manually extracted | Local Authority | Retain candidate; distinguish primary data from a disposable cache |
|
|
| Cross-source review hypothesis | Scoped Authority | Investigate whether this is a context rule rather than another pattern |
|
|
|
|
There are no generated P01 identities to map: the provider runs failed. No canonical
|
|
FEP IDs, pattern files, known uses or graph edges have been admitted in this pilot.
|
|
|
|
## Next bounded work
|
|
|
|
- FEP-WP-0002-T02: extend review to durability, rejected writes, synchronization and
|
|
conflicting edits; verify independent implementations. Source catalog remains
|
|
extracted, not fully reviewed.
|
|
- FEP-WP-0002-T03: test acknowledgement distinctions on VC-01 and VC-02, using the
|
|
same changed constraint: lose connectivity, restart, then reconnect.
|
|
- Live execution now uses llm-connect. See [service pilot review](LLMConnectPilot.md)
|
|
for subsequent runs, truncation and admission findings. The earlier failures above
|
|
remain historical evidence; workstation provider credentials are no longer needed.
|