tegwick
96d11431dc
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
1.5 KiB
| title | status | maturity | families | scales | admission | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local Draft State | draft | hypothesis |
|
|
research-candidate-only |
Local Draft State
Context: editing a shared server-validated record. Problem: a refresh or rejected write can destroy unfinished intent. Responsiveness and recoverability compete with state complexity and privacy.
Proposed solution: keep base observation, editable proposal and current server observation distinct. Rejection preserves the proposal; refreshed data prompts comparison instead of replacing input. Explicit discard clears the draft. Define whether navigation or restart persistence is required rather than implying it.
Consequences: review is possible after rejection, but stale drafts and sensitive data need lifetime rules. Binding inputs directly to a refreshed cache is simpler when there is no unfinished work; durable local authority is a different requirement.
Evidence: T01/T02 motivate rejection recovery; T05 illustrates local submission data. None verifies this complete draft lifecycle in a deployed frontend. Exact known uses and recurrence: unknown. Hypothesis only.
Proposed connection: supports recovery from Version-Checked Mutation.
T01–T05 refer to TransactionalEvidenceExpansion. Connections are research proposals, not admitted graph edges. Reasoning exercise: VC-01.