tegwick
cfa249ab13
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
66 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
66 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
# Research cycle optimization
|
||
|
||
Date: 2026-09-25. Reviewer: codex, self-review.
|
||
Question: can we avoid redundant inference while making the first application test
|
||
expose concrete research needs? No new paid live calls or source collection this cycle.
|
||
|
||
## Execution policy and verification
|
||
|
||
New conditional-v1 workspaces screen candidate ledgers before continuing. Zero/one
|
||
candidate produces an empty relation set deterministically; multiple candidates permit
|
||
one relation call which must pass endpoint/evidence-field checks. A deterministic
|
||
editorial checklist replaces automatic model self-critique. This prevents the repeated
|
||
claim-ID relation failure from propagating and avoids treating self-approval as validation.
|
||
|
||
Explicit reuse checks completed-run/cache integrity and fingerprints source, prompts,
|
||
workflow, adapter settings and code. Matching stages replay with origin provenance;
|
||
failed runs and changed inputs cannot silently qualify. Reuse is not freshness checking
|
||
of an external runtime profile. Current call/token accounting excludes cached responses.
|
||
|
||
Tests cover zero/one/two-candidate branches, valid/invalid edges, malformed candidates,
|
||
zero-call replay, changed source/prompt/fixture/model, cache corruption and failed-run
|
||
rejection. A local mock llm-connect HTTP service verifies execution/reuse accounting.
|
||
The checked-in synthetic smoke used two fixture calls; its replay used zero. Relative
|
||
to four historical calls, those branches remove two calls or all fresh calls respectively.
|
||
This is a call-count result, not a measured percentage reduction in live cost or quality.
|
||
|
||
Compact records and structured candidate/relation ledgers remain the output contract.
|
||
Source locators stay in the evidence ledger/prose. A structured report distinguishes
|
||
structural rejections from unassessed editorial corrections. The review-metrics template
|
||
requires individual findings before counts can mean anything.
|
||
|
||
## First application test
|
||
|
||
[VC-02 walkthrough](../walkthroughs/VC02-OfflineFieldNotes.md) connects Local Commit
|
||
Boundary, Pending Synchronization, Conflict Copy and Explicit Reconciliation. These
|
||
are four research hypotheses, not canonical patterns. It traces a restart, divergent
|
||
edits, preserved conflict, explicit resolution and lost acknowledgement. Removing
|
||
concurrent writers removes conflict-specific steps while retaining persistence/retry.
|
||
|
||
The baseline narrative can already describe the same architecture. The proposed benefit
|
||
of the vocabulary is exposing acknowledgement and recovery boundaries for review;
|
||
independent evidence of improved decision quality remains unknown. Explicit Reconciliation
|
||
may be merged into Conflict Copy if it adds no independent retrieval/application value.
|
||
|
||
## Editorial corrections made in this cycle
|
||
|
||
- Replaced one ambiguous saved/synced interpretation with three explicit boundaries:
|
||
local commit, receiver acknowledgement and semantic resolution (VC-02 trace).
|
||
- Narrowed restart survival to a stated storage-transaction assumption; no power-loss
|
||
guarantee is inferred from a local database being present (VC-02 assumptions/failures).
|
||
- Rejected the implication that a receiver acknowledgement proves all-device convergence
|
||
or backup availability (VC-02 steps 9–10).
|
||
|
||
These are three recorded design corrections, not model-error-rate measurements. The
|
||
synthetic smoke has not received substantive research review and does not inherit them.
|
||
|
||
## Next questions, ranked by walkthrough impact
|
||
|
||
1. Select and verify a storage acknowledgement/atomicity contract under interruption.
|
||
2. Locate and test receiver deduplication plus revision ancestry under a lost response.
|
||
3. Define keyboard/screen-reader conflict discovery and resolution acceptance checks.
|
||
4. Contrast VC-01's global validation requirement before generalizing these relations.
|
||
|
||
T02 owns targeted evidence; T03 now owns the draft walkthrough and connected candidate
|
||
set. Runtime proof, canonical admission, VC-01 and the full M1 gate remain unfinished.
|
||
No further broad extraction is justified until it answers one of these questions.
|